# "Lind's Law": The lower the level of government, the more crooked & inefficient **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 21, 2012, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584 "2012-05-21T04:53:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/21 "2012-05-21T20:02:58Z")
> [@Algher](#): > > Since we are on anecdotes, I have seen corruption at every level. The national stuff is more sophisticated, but the corruption is there nonetheless. Its like sales guys - a rep selling tanks to the Army is the same type of guy selling used cars in hicksville. They are both buying dinners, glossing over problems, and doing whatever it takes to close the deal. One might have a better suit, but if you distill them down to their essence - they are the same. > > I also like the ability to make a difference locally with City Council and School Board members in my contacts. Re-reading this I realized something - I am also an example of corruption in a sense since I am someone with a louder voice who gets more love from the politicos. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/22 "2012-05-21T20:07:55Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > The weird thing is that other parts of Arkansas (rural areas) integrated before Brown vs. the Board of Education without any of the same problems experienced in Little Rock. Perhaps because Little Rock was so high-profile and symbolic. But there might be a simpler explanation – from what I’ve heard, in the Jim Crow South, the understood norms of race relations varied from county to county and town to town. Some places, AAs simply were not allowed after sundown; other places had little problem with them at all, all things considered; and there was a whole spectrum between. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/23 "2012-05-21T20:45:52Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, for things like not letting blacks go to school that is a good example as to where the Federal government needs to come in to trump local government–and it did. That’s not really an argument to toss all local governments on the dust bin of history and go to a system in which a few powerful politicians appoint 99% of the rest of the offices in the whole country. How about if they just appoint strawmen? My point is that there seems to be a very strong desire by many to have more power at the local level, and that desire seems to run contrary to experience. Basing school funding on the size of the local tax base is beyond ludicrous, it is almost criminal. Not having a national curriculum is also silly when people move so often among states. We’ll always need local government, but I’d rather base the decision on their scope on pragmatism rather than ideology. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/24 "2012-05-21T21:21:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Perhaps because Little Rock was so high-profile and symbolic. But there might be a simpler explanation – from what I’ve heard, in the Jim Crow South, the understood norms of race relations varied from county to county and town to town. Some places, AAs simply were not allowed after sundown; other places had little problem with them at all, all things considered; and there was a whole spectrum between. There were two reasons why rural schools in Arkansas integrated before 1957. First, even if separate but equal wasn’t equal you still had to maintain separate facilities. Some rural districts in Arkansas just couldn’t afford separate facilities no matter how unequal they were (cost of teachers, administrators and maintenance). Second, many school districts read the writing on the wall and figured it was only a matter of time before they were forced to integrate anyway. One intriguing possibility is that it was the Brown v. Board of Education that really sparked integration conflicts. Consider that other cities had integrated bus services (Baton Rogue, LA for example) without any of the difficulties experience in Montgomery, Alabama. The difference is that Baton Rogue integrated before the decision and Montgomery after. The Brown vs. Board made it possible for local demagogues to screech about integration and get elected. I’m not really making a case for local government here, am I? ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/25 "2012-05-21T22:04:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > True enough. Our way of government is premised on the belief that, all things considered, it’s better when government is responsive to the people. Sometimes the people will get hysterical and push through stupid laws, but on the whole it’s still better when they have power. Actually our way of government is premised on the belief that people are bright enough to pick smarter people to run things and after that they should leave well enough alone while those elites work things out. That’s what separation of powers and checks and balances are about. What we have is a paternalistic democracy. One of the ways that power is kept in the hands of the power brokers is by dividing it up in so many ways. Regular people just don’t have the time to monitor all the levels of government. Sure 100 motivated people are a force in local governments but moneyed interests are a force in every jurisdiction and the more the merrier. > [@](#): > > Another point about lower levels of government is that it’s easier to get away from them when they make bad decisions. If your city government [runs a 12-billion-dollar debt](http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/12/detroits-slow-fiscal-death-march), you can move to the suburbs. Moving to the suburbs is the very reason for the dire situation in Detroit. Allowing people to move away from problems doesn’t solve those problems. It merely puts more and more of a burden upon those who can least afford it: those too poor to move. If the suburbs were amalgamated into the city at the current urban tax rates then would Greater Detroit have any budget problem at all? I expect not. Due to the balkanization of government here in Allegheny County families with under $25,000 pay local income taxes ar an 18% higher rate and property taxes at a 10% higher millage than families making more than $150,000. Outside Allegheny County taxes are even lower and many residents there still enjoy the benefits of living near a large city without shouldering any of the cost. So the proliferation of governmental entities is not a good thing. But that’s not evidence that local governments are more corrupt. I would think that many of them are since there are many parts of the nation that have one party rule which breeds corruption. But overall, I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/26 "2012-05-21T22:07:25Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > One intriguing possibility is that it was the Brown v. Board of Education that really sparked integration conflicts. Consider that other cities had integrated bus services (Baton Rogue, LA for example) without any of the difficulties experience in Montgomery, Alabama. The difference is that Baton Rogue integrated before the decision and Montgomery after. Do you have a cite for this? I don’t doubt you but would be interested in more info. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/27 "2012-05-21T22:37:32Z")
Would Tammany Hall count? ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/28 "2012-05-21T22:40:11Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > Do you have a cite for this? I don’t doubt you but would be interested in more info. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1304163](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1304163) Okay, they didn’t quite end segregation on the buses but on the whole it was a lot calmer in Baton Rouge than it was two years later in Montgomery, AL. Whites in Baton Rogue were a lot more willing to play ball than the folks in Montgomery. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/29 "2012-05-22T00:05:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > From “A Horde of Lilliputian Governments,” by [Michael Lind](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lind), published in [url=]_The New Leader_ (now defunct) May 5, 1997: > > Anybody have any reason to think otherwise? I will offer that the smaller governments are easier to audit, but, equally, or less, corrupt. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/30 "2012-05-22T00:37:27Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > I will offer that the smaller governments are easier to audit, but, equally, or less, corrupt. I would disagree with that. I think that small governments often have incredibly uneven, irregular, and opaque finances because they are run by part-timers and have grown up organically from when the whole system was a ledger book kept in the town hall. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/31 "2012-05-22T00:58:55Z")
> [@Typo\_Knig](#): > > A counterexample: Fairfax County, Virginia. Little-to-no corruption, efficient and well-run government for just over a million people with very few layers. In my native New Jersey the same population would be covered by a county or three, and dozens of “cities”, townships, boroughs, etc. We also have one of the best school districts in the US. Taxes are high, but things are run well. That’s the main point of the article quoted in the OP: There are just too many little local governments in America, they could do with some systematic consolidation. For my part, I think every [MSA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Statistical_Area) should have a single consolidated metro government. [Cities Without Suburbs!](http://www.amazon.com/Cities-without-Suburbs-Woodrow-Wilson/dp/0943875730) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/32 "2012-05-22T01:05:15Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Would Tammany Hall count? As a corrupt local government? Certainly, but aren’t urban machine-politics and courthouse-rings mostly things of the past in America? I’m not talking about **organized** corruption here, only of corruption (and incompetence) finding multiplied opportunities in tiny local units. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/33 "2012-05-22T01:26:08Z")
I don’t agree with this thread’s premise, based on my observation of local government in my geographical area. Since I videotape ALL county and town board meetings, that’s a lot of observation. The government officials I know are human like anyone else, which means they aren’t perfect, but checks and balances seem to work well. I notice that most citizens tend to ignore working local government bodies unless: (1) an item on the agenda directly affects them, or (2) if they perceive a gross corruption. Which means that most of the time, the public meetings are poorly attended. But once we had a town chairman who was lining his pockets at public expense, and the hue and cry reached a fever pitch and the meetings were packed. Once he was thrown out, the attendance returned to normal (no one there). That would seem to suggest that corruption cannot continue indefinitely. Another factor for local governments: in a small town, everyone knows everyone else. One crook cannot remain hidden as much as in a larger town. This contradicts the OP’s premise, too. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/34 "2012-05-22T01:48:29Z")
There are some serious philosophical issues within this thread as well. I don’t believe the premise to begin with even though there are certainly corrupt local governments. Everything I have ever seen in practical life is that the more local the better as general rule. It is impossible for people to understand all the issues that are not immediately in front of them. That applies from New York state where much of the state is rural yet New York City itself is a world-class city with its own issues. I wouldn’t expect people even in that state to fully understand the concerns of their fellow state citizens let alone those of Alaskans, Louisianans, or Californians. Movements towards more consolidated governments are almost always authoritarian in philosophy and usually quite inefficient in their blanket one-size-fits laws that are a necessary component of that. That is the exact opposite of what people like me want. Most importantly, with more local governments, everyone has the freedom of movement if they don’t like the current environment. Larger governments limit those choices and that is a deal killer for me and most others. The logical conclusion to larger and larger governments is a one-world government. That may sound appealing a few control freaks but to most of us don’t want it and will fight to the death to prevent it. If that sounds straw-man argument, it doesn’t seem like it to me. The U.S. is one of the largest countries on earth. Further tendencies towards centralization in the U.S. are just medium scale versions of the same thing. Let’s respect diversity of choices even within our own country or anyone else’s for that matter. Making government diagrams look prettier because you don’t understand the reasons they were set up they to begin with isn’t the way to achieve anything worthwhile. There are probably good cases for consolidation to be made somewhere but it shouldn’t be blanket philosophy. It is true control freak behavior that dictators throughout history loved to use usually with disastrous consequences. We need to respect individual and group differences. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/35 "2012-05-22T02:04:23Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > That would seem to suggest that corruption cannot continue indefinitely. > > Another factor for local governments: in a small town, everyone knows everyone else. One crook cannot remain hidden as much as in a larger town. This contradicts the OP’s premise, too. These two passages assume a couple of things: The corruption is known to people and the people are interested in rooting crooks out. It’s just as likely that either the crook can get away with it without people noticing precisely because nobody cares about local matters, or people notice but let it go because “John Smith is a good ol’ boy, I knew his momma.” The very fact that people are known to each other at the local level is a double-edged sword. Yes, it can hold people in power more directly accountable, but it can also excuse some horrific behavior. And who’s to say the majority of the community isn’t right there with the crook? If (note, I say if) the charges against Arpaio hold, then he’s committed some pretty significant crimes, and he’s _popular_ down here. He gets elected easily, and if it hadn’t been for the federal government looking into him, he’d have kept right on as he’s been doing. A person does not always act rationally, in their own best interests, and with full knowledge, yet that’s always the underlying assumption in small-government thinking. And when you get down to the local level, it only takes a few busybodies with more time on their hands than most hardworking people to really mess with things. I’m not saying local government is entirely bad or useless, but each level of government has its own pros and cons, and each is useful to shore up the weaknesses of the others. Tossing out federal or even state involvement removes some of the safety buffers on the drawbacks to local government. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/36 "2012-05-22T03:04:12Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Movements towards more consolidated governments are almost always authoritarian in philosophy and usually quite inefficient in their blanket one-size-fits laws that are a necessary component of that. That is the exact opposite of what people like me want. Most importantly, with more local governments, everyone has the freedom of movement if they don’t like the current environment. Larger governments limit those choices and that is a deal killer for me and most others. Speaking only for myself I don’t believe more authoritarian local government would be a good thing. What we need are simply fewer local governments. We need wider authority not broader authority, if you see what I mean. Freedom of movement is a great thing but we shouldn’t encourage “anti-rent seeking”. By that I mean trying to place as much of the burden of maintaining the infrastructure of your locale on others by strategically locating your residence in the lowest tax area. If people want to move to the far side of Beaver or Washington Counties and seek economic and social opportunities there, I think that’s fine. What I object to is people moving to the near side of those counties to continue to work and play in Pittsburgh. That sort of freeloading should be discouraged. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/37 "2012-05-22T03:20:15Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > These two passages assume a couple of things: The corruption is known to people and the people are interested in rooting crooks out. It’s just as likely that either the crook can get away with it without people noticing precisely because nobody cares about local matters, or people notice but let it go because “John Smith is a good ol’ boy, I knew his momma.” In my example, that was certainly a factor. But more people were interested in rooting the crooks out than were related to the miscreant. The “rooting the crooks out” was exactly what seemed to gather the crowds for meetings that previously had few attendees. It seems to rub many people the wrong way when there is obvious corruption, and if the corruption affects their pocketbooks, they are even more interested in cleaning it up. In my example, there was a town chairman who discovered he could triple his income by volunteering to empty the dropboxes where fishermen left their $5 launch fees. Town ordinance said this task paid $40 for each time a box was emptied, but didn’t specify how often it had to be done. Mr. “Forty Gordy” began emptying boxes far more than required, probably relieving the town of any cash that was deposited as well. Then he discovered that he didn’t actually have to empty the boxes, just report that he did, and he earned another $40. This went on for a while due to the brother-in-law relationship with others in the town, but once it came out in the open, relatives couldn’t protect Forty Gordy from the town’s wrath, because the fees came out of the town’s pocket, and therefore the taxpayer’s pockets. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/38 "2012-05-22T03:29:28Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Also, while I like local government I’ve always been opposed to a few offices being elected. > > I don’t think County Sheriffs anywhere should be an elected position, they should be appointed by county elected government from the ranks of the professional police force. No judges should be elected, ever. Nor should magistrates or prosecutors. Agreed, for the most part. IMO, elected officials should be **policymakers.** And cops should not be that, and should be answerable to elected policymakers. Giving them an independent electoral mandate can result in . . . well, Arpaio. As for judges, the important thing is not whether they are elected or appointed but whether, once on the bench, they are insulated from political pressure. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/39 "2012-05-22T03:43:16Z")
If the law does hold, the death of local newspapers will make it worse. On the small scale, the Internet does not have nearly the reach that a town newspaper did. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584/40 "2012-05-22T03:46:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes. At every level of government there’s some corruption. The reason why many people would prefer to have decisions made at local levels is that there’s more possibility of the people exercising control over small governments than big ones. In my county there are about 10,000 votes cast in a typical election. That means that if I and a few hundred of my fellows in this county wish to effect some sort of change in the county government, we have a chance of doing so. On the other hand, the same group of people would have no chance at all of effecting some sort of change in Congress. This reasoning advances theory over practice, though. Voter turnout in state elections is far lower than that for federal elections, and voter turnout in local elections is an entire order of magnitude lower. [Mayoral elections, for example, rarely draw more than a 10% turnout](http://www.fairvote.org/voter-turnout#.T7sKotxrM_g). In theory, local government is more accountable to the electorate. In practice, local government is accountable to no-one. If you want to address accountability in elections, get rid of the nonsensical primary system that gives New Hampshire and Iowa such ridiculous influence over presidential elections. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/linds-law-the-lower-the-level-of-government-the-more-crooked-inefficient/622584.md?page=3)