The Death Of Democracy?

[sophie]

All I see is a city failing and the state coming in to sort it out. I don't understand what the big deal is...

 

[Commodore]

All I see is a city failing and the state coming in to sort it out. I don't understand what the big deal is...

It's the fact that the state could have sorted out the problem without dismantling the government of the town. The state is also starting to take control of matters beyond their mandate. They are only supposed to make changes regarding fiscal aspects of government.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'm addressing the principle behind what you were saying, not saying that this will literally turn into a dictatorship.

And I am saying that this is not very useful, because this "principle" (suspension of democracy) has not some inherent quality (like: tangible risk of democracy per se dissolving), but - as said - depends on the context. For instance what kind of democracy (especially on what level, OP:local) is suspended by whom (OP: democratic state) for what reasons (OP: insolvency) in the frame of what procedure (OP: receivership).

Of course, you may hold the belief that a simple temporary suspension of democracy in order to protect the interests of society is completely fine,

I don't hold such a belief.
I do think that a temporary suspension of local democracy can be a good mechanism to coup with certain troubles.
I share your apparent reservations towards suspension of democracy on the national level.

 

[downtown]

This is also happening in Michigan, and will likely happen in towns all over the us.

 

[Cutlass]

Of course it has a right to exist. That government was elected by the people of Central Falls, not appointed by the state of Rhode Island. This is tyranny, no matter how you slice it or how legal it is.

It has a right to exist only to the extent that it is allowed to exist. It really is a part of the state, and the state allows it to have some leeway within state laws. Now if the state doesn't step in the people there are screwed.

 

[Quackers]

My feelings tell me iguanas are somehow behind this..

 

[Commodore]

It has a right to exist only to the extent that it is allowed to exist. It really is a part of the state, and the state allows it to have some leeway within state laws. Now if the state doesn't step in the people there are screwed.

I'm not saying the state shouldn't have stepped in, but there are ways they could have done it without the suspension of democracy.

I still have not heard a good reason as to why suspension of democracy was the ONLY possible solution to the problem. And if it was the the only solution, then I also have not heard a good reason as to why the state is changing things beyond the fiscal issues (which is beyond the original mandate of the receivership).

Legal or not, the state of Rhode Island trampled all over the rights of the citizens of Central Falls, and that is completely outrageous and disgusting.

And don't give me any of this "well they can still vote in state elections" crap. I say crap because that's what that arguement is. The reason local governments exist is to more efficiently address the issues of the area it governs. Think about it, do you think the state government in Providence really understands or even cares about the issues of Central Falls? No, they don't because they have a whole state to worry about. It's basically the same concept as the central planning economy of the Soviet Union and we all see how that worked. It wasn't good business for Moscow to dictate to Vladivostok, and it's not good business for Providence to dictate to Central Falls.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You know what has actually proven to not be good business? Central Falls governing itself via democracy. And that's why your local democracy is suspended I'd assume. Some overly simplifying comparisons to the SU seems ridiculous to me, to be honest. The world isn't simple enough to fit such broad idealogical categories.

Moreover, the state has to finance the mess caused by your democratic local government. Would you prefer it if the state let you financially rot but you could keep your democracy? Wouldn't be worth much, would it?

Of course, I can see how you may prefer the State puring in money and letting your democratic government continue - but don't you see the risk? That your local government doesn't do what it hasn't done in the past - make the necessary cuts which would result in the pleasure of the rest of the state financing Central Fall's fiscal irresponsibility. I am sure that would be a great deal for Central Falls. Not so much for the rest of the state. And not very moral, either.

 

[Cutlass]

The thing is, that city is no worse in fiscal management than the majority of cities in the US. Their extra problem is that they are so tiny that their tax base can move away by only moving within walking distance of where they are. So the city has no freedom of action.

The most common fiscal mismanagement in the US, and this applies to most cities and counties, most states, and even the federal government, and 1000s of private businesses as well, is that they did not put away enough money for the retirement expenses that they contracted for. And so now all the people who never did a damned thing wrong are being screwed over to bail out the selfish. Except that in this place's case those people who caused the problem can easily leave and get a free ride.

 

[Commodore]

You know what has actually proven to not be good business? Central Falls governing itself via democracy. And that's why your local democracy is suspended I'd assume. Some overly simplifying comparisons to the SU seems ridiculous to me, to be honest. The world isn't simple enough to fit such broad idealogical categories.

Moreover, the state has to finance the mess caused by your democratic local government. Would you prefer it if the state let you financially rot but you could keep your democracy? Wouldn't be worth much, would it?

Of course, I can see how you may prefer the State puring in money and letting your democratic government continue - but don't you see the risk? That your local government doesn't do what it hasn't done in the past - make the necessary cuts which would result in the pleasure of the rest of the state financing Central Fall's fiscal irresponsibility. I am sure that would be a great deal for Central Falls. Not so much for the rest of the state. And not very moral, either.

I get the impression that you think I am from Central Falls, which is a reasonable assumption since I am defending their cause so passionately. I am however not from Central Falls; hell I haven't even been to Rhode Island. I am merely disgusted with the trampling of rights occuring in the city of Central Falls.

Never once in my arguments did I ever say the state should not step in (which for some reason people here seem to think I did). I just protest the method in which they chose to step in. Cities and towns have amassed unpayable debt before and their democracy was not suspended. I mean come on, Detroit's democracy hasn't been suspended and you'd be hard pressed to make an argument that Central Fall, RI is worse off than Detroit, MI.

Also, taking away a city's democratic rights as a punishment for fiscal irresponsibility is most definitely not a punishment that fits the crime. Would you think it was fair if the government sent someone to plan the rest of your life for you without your input just because you filed for bankruptcy? No you wouldn't because not only would that be a serious infringement on your rights, but it wouldn't be the best solution to the problem either.

Yes my earlier comparison to the Soviet Union was oversimplified, but that was the point. I had to oversimplify the situation so that hopefully people could see the insanity that is taking place in Rhode Island right now.

Not to mention there has still not been a good argument presented as to how receivership was the only way to save Central Falls and why the state is affecting matters beyond the fiscal realm. Which, I repeat, is outside the mandate of the receivership.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And so now all the people who never did a damned thing wrong are being screwed over to bail out the selfish. Except that in this place's case those people who caused the problem can easily leave and get a free ride.

What do you mean by that? That members of the younger generation are selfish for not accepting the necessary cuts/taxes to support the financial claims of the retired?
Other than that, good and interesting points. So that seems to me like the competition of rivaling local governments in the context of local taxes and local pension entitlements goes to show how competition between those can be dysfunctional.

@Commodore
First I don' think it is sensible to view it as a "punishment". It is a measure born out of perceived practical necessity.
Regarding your complaint that the receivership moves beyond its mandate. It already has been pointed out that fiscal trouble by necessity stretches to all aspects of a public entity. Because everything costs something or brings in money.
As for the necessity of suspending democracy - as said, one possible argument is that the democratic body is not trusted to deal with the fiscal situation properly. Now you may differ in that, and maybe you are right, but I personally can see this to be a viable argument.
At last, your complain that other cities don't face similar measures - it's a good point regarding fairness. I would assume that there are two main reasons for that:
1st That the suspension of democracy in a city as big as Detroit would cause too much public upheaval. That's not fair, because it means that in this instance the wishes of bigger cities weigh heavier while those of smaller cities get more willingly stepped upon. But it doesn't automatically make the case of Central Falls less justifiable in itself.
2n A city as big as Detroit may be argued to be too much of a task for a single dictator, while in the case of the more manageable Central Falls a single decision-maker is more viable.

 

[Commodore]

First I don' think it is sensible to view it as a "punishment". It is a measure born out of perceived practical necessity.

It may not be a punishment in the state's eyes, but it is in the eyes of the people of Central Falls. And as I'm sure you know, public perception can go a long way, whether or not that perception is correct.

Regarding your complaint that the receivership moves beyond its mandate. It already has been pointed out that fiscal trouble by necessity stretches to all aspects of a public entity. Because everything costs something or brings in money.

I agree with the point that everything has an impact on or is impacted by fiscal matters, but that does not automatically mean they should be lumped in with fiscal policy. To say so is utter maddness to me, because then you essentially create a society in which all decisions are based on the fiscal bottom line. I don't know about you, but that's not the kind of society I want to live in.

As for the necessity of suspending democracy - as said, one possible argument is that the democratic body is not trusted to deal with the fiscal situation properly. Now you may differ in that, and maybe you are right, but I personally can see this to be a viable argument.

The suspension of democracy is definitely one solution to the problem, but I am still not convinced it was the only solution. If this receivership really is the only solution I wouldn't be so up in arms about it, but since I am not convinced this is the case I will continue to oppose it. Suspension of the democratic process should be the absolute very last resort to solve any social or economic problems.

At last, your complain that other cities don't face similar measures - it's a good point regarding fairness. I would assume that there are two main reasons for that:
1st That the suspension of democracy in a city as big as Detroit would cause too much public upheaval. That's not fair, because it means that in this instance the wishes of bigger cities weigh heavier while those of smaller cities get more willingly stepped upon. But it doesn't automatically make the case of Central Falls less justifiable in itself.
2n A city as big as Detroit may be argued to be too much of a task for a single dictator, while in the case of the more manageable Central Falls a single decision-maker is more viable.

My point with that is exactly what you mentioned: I feel this was done to Central Falls simply because they could get away with it. If Central Falls were a city of 190,000 instead of 19,000 I truly believe a fairer solution would have been enacted. To steamroll the people of a city simply because they are too small to do anything about it stands against everything this nation claims to stand for.

 

[Cutlass]

What do you mean by that? That members of the younger generation are selfish for not accepting the necessary cuts/taxes to support the financial claims of the retired?
Other than that, good and interesting points. So that seems to me like the competition of rivaling local governments in the context of local taxes and local pension entitlements goes to show how competition between those can be dysfunctional.

The pension problem is that is that just about everyone had the same idea: "When the pensions come due, we'll pay them out of current revenue and the growth between now and then will make that painless." Aside from a few economists, actuaries, and statisticians, essentially everyone believed this. And so current taxpayers could make promises that future taxpayers would be on the hook for. And this happened in almost every state and every city. (Many of the large businesses in the country did the same thing, except thinking of future business revenues instead of tax receipts. However a number of years ago federal laws were changed to make them at least begin to set aside enough money. Many haven't, which amounts to theft from the former employees). This little town did nothing different from what everyone was doing.

What happened next was that due to demographic and economic changes, it became obvious that those future commitments were going to be much more problematic than originally expected. And that was the time that it was necessary to act to put aside enough money to meet future commitments. Only most places didn't do it. Or at least didn't do enough of it. They kept their taxes low then and so made the commitments unpayable now.

Remember how compound interest works. If you start saving for your retirement when you are 25, even if the rate you add to it is low, you will end up with far more money than if you don't start saving until you are 45. The same is true with a pension fund of a company or a city.

Now all these retirees worked in good faith, and that promise of their pension was part of their compensation. To take any part of it is an act of theft. So the taxpayers of yesteryear have stolen from both the retirees of today and tomorrow and the taxpayers of today and tomorrow.

 

[LucyDuke]

I am however not from Central Falls; hell I haven't even been to Rhode Island.

Obviously you've never been, or you'd know Central Falls is a worthless little hellhole that ought to be glued back to Lincoln. It never should've become its own city in the first place.

I mean come on, Detroit's democracy hasn't been suspended and you'd be hard pressed to make an argument that Central Fall, RI is worse off than Detroit, MI.

You just said you don't know the place.

 

[Commodore]

You just said you don't know the place.

I made that statement based on the fact that Detroit has consistantly been rated as one of America's worst (sometimes THE worst) city.

 

[LucyDuke]

Yeah, and nobody that makes those rankings pays any attention to Central Falls. Also Detroit is much harder to control.

 

[Commodore]

Yeah, and nobody that makes those rankings pays any attention to Central Falls. Also Detroit is much harder to control.

The key in what you said is the "harder to control". Detroit gets to keep it's right to democracy simply because Michigan couldn't pull off putting a dictator in control, while Central Falls gets shafted because they are too small to effectively oppose it.

 

[Cutlass]

Michigan could do to Detroit what happened to Indianapolis. That is, the city and county were folded into one entity. It worked out pretty well for Indianapolis. Of course Detroit is a larger problem. And it is a problem people really are not willing to see fixed. Central Falls is a tiny problem in comparison.

 

[Murky]

This is what happens when too much of the wealth is shifted to the top 1%. Those 1% can easily pay off corrupt politicians to keep from paying their fair share of taxes. Without tax revenues, government goes bankrupt. When government goes bankrupt it fails to function.

 

[LucyDuke]

The key in what you said is the "harder to control". Detroit gets to keep it's right to democracy simply because Michigan couldn't pull off putting a dictator in control, while Central Falls gets shafted because they are too small to effectively oppose it.

You misunderstand me. Detroit is huge. If Central Falls were so big, people would notice and something more would have to be done. But it's freakin' tiny and it's easy to ignore what a vile dump it is.

This is what happens when too much of the wealth is shifted to the top 1%. Those 1% can easily pay off corrupt politicians to keep from paying their fair share of taxes. Without tax revenues, government goes bankrupt. When government goes bankrupt it fails to function.

Central Falls never had any money to begin with.