It's all about states' rights, as long as it's the right to be awful to minorities. If a state wants to, yknow, provide for the general welfare, well the boys in Washington want to have a talk with you.
They detest the power of the State. Unless it's an actual state, and they are the ones wielding it, then they love the power of the State.
"local subdivisions merely 'are created as convenient agencies for
exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be
entrusted to them in their absolute discretion.'"
And those local subdivisions extend all the way down to the single individual level, right?
greed hates competition.
Another example of the absurdity of arguing that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
I particularly liked the bit about how democrat commissioners shouldn't do anything future republican administrators might object to. Isn't one party doing things that the other party might object to the whole point in having different parties in the first place?
Well one CAN believe that states have the authority to prohibit localities from offering broad band AND believe that this is a TERRIBLE policy. But it is a political battle to be fought in the statehouse.
In short, he is in favor of devolving power to the level of local control that happens to be most closely aligned with his ideology. No higher, no lower.
It's pretty well cooked into US law that localities -- whether a county, a city, a school district or a mosquito abatement district -- are political subdivisions of a state. If a state is prohibited from doing something, so are all of its subdivisions; if a state can do something, it can grant or deny that right to a local government.
If you don't keep these things tied together -- if you act as if localities can operate differently than states -- pretty soon you'll have the El Dorado, Arkansas Unified School District deciding it can ignore rules laid down on the State of Arkansas.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.