What part of the theory is "bunk"? Are you suggesting that the less local a government is the more democratic it is? Please also note that I said could because I'm not making a strong claim for this to always be true.
> What pits people against each other are exclusionary housing laws that the wealthy use to keep poor people separate from them, not the words we use to describe that choice.
Generic suburbs (with their exclusionary housing laws) would have to be included in this statement for it to be true. "The wealthy" whoever that convenient scapegoat is are not the only ones who do this.
I’m explicitly stating that the fact its more local doesn’t make it more democratic per se. A small group of people who can effectively vote down the majority are not being democratic.
> The state should not be able to supersede local authority for local concerns, it's authoritarian.
Absolutely I include the suburbs I grew up in. The rich keep the middle out, and the middle keep the poor out. Not that hard to fathom.
> I’m explicitly stating that the fact its more local doesn’t make it more democratic per se.
Ok why are you explicitly stating that? Was what I wrote unclear?
> A small group of people who can effectively vote down the majority are not being democratic.
This occurs at "higher" levels of government as well.
> Absolutely I include the suburbs I grew up in. The rich keep the middle out, and the middle keep the poor out. Not that hard to fathom.
I just wanted to make it was very explicit that we're talking about the "rich" and middle class and that together they are oppressing the poor because you only mentioned "the wealthy".
What you wrote was wrong, so I refuted it. It's not anti-democratic or wrong for a state or national government to supersede laws and authority that are being used undemocratically.
> This occurs at "higher" levels of government as well.
Duh, that's why we try to achieve balances of power. The state overriding exclusionary housing laws during a housing crisis a good example of this being used correctly.
> I just wanted to make it was very explicit that we're talking about the "rich" and middle class and that together they are oppressing the poor because you only mentioned "the wealthy".
I didn't say they were working together, I said everyone is punching down.
What specifically did I write that was wrong? Because I did not claim that in all cases a state or national government subsperceding local authority is always un-democratic. I explained that it could be un-democratic. The key word is could hear.
> What pits people against each other are exclusionary housing laws that the wealthy use to keep poor people separate from them, not the words we use to describe that choice.
Just to be clear, when you wrote this instead of "the wealthy use to keep poor people separate from them" what you meant was "what each progressively wealthier group uses to keep the poorer groups separate from them" then?
> Duh, that's why we try to achieve balances of power. The state overriding exclusionary housing laws during a housing crisis a good example of this being used correctly.
"When state power is being used in the way I agree with to supersede other democratically elected governments it's good".
The State used that same justification to wield this same power to override the wishes of the historically black communities of my home town and forced them out for highway construction.
I didn't claim that it's always good or always bad or always democratic or always un-democratic for the state to override the wishes of a group of citizens and their democratically elected government. I claimed that sometimes it could be. History also shows, and I've given a very good and clear example, that this power tends to be abused. Usually by corporate interests in cahoots with the biggest government entity they can get to wield power.
My elaboration on the wealthy was sufficient. "Rich keep out the middle, middle keep out the poor".
> The State used that same justification to wield this same power to override the wishes of the historically black communities of my home town and forced them out for highway construction.
The historically black communities of your home town were almost certainly a minority within their state (or city if you grew up in LA or NYC). That is an example of democracy resulting in a morally bad result, but a democratic one nonetheless.
What part of the theory is "bunk"? Are you suggesting that the less local a government is the more democratic it is? Please also note that I said could because I'm not making a strong claim for this to always be true.
> What pits people against each other are exclusionary housing laws that the wealthy use to keep poor people separate from them, not the words we use to describe that choice.
Generic suburbs (with their exclusionary housing laws) would have to be included in this statement for it to be true. "The wealthy" whoever that convenient scapegoat is are not the only ones who do this.