I already addressed every single reason that has been mentioned in this thread (except for your mystery rationale that you claim you already laid out, but won't tell what it is.) But I'll quickly recap for you:
At that point I never said that
I laid it out. I just stated that it had already been said in the thread.
The argument about it being unfair for one state to reap the benefits of hosting the federal government doesn't hold water, because the benefits of doing so flow into DC regardless of whether or not it's a state. And because two ACTUAL states - Maryland and Virginia - also hold a substantial number of federal agencies. And because EVERY state is home to various military bases and/or national parks and/or other federal property.
The benefits that flow into DC right now is there because the rest of the country decided that DC needed those benefits. However if there were sitting senators for DC then they would get
more than other states. How would this happen you no doubt would ask? Simple. The state would have the authority to kick the government head quarters out of their state. That threat, or even implied thread, alone would gain favortism. While states are obligated under the Constitution to follow what the Federal government says there is nothing in the Constitution which gauruntee's the federal government land inside state borders. Indeed Utah is currently attempting to take back land inside its borders from the federal government. Which from what I have been hearing is likely to be upheld by the courts.
The argument that DC is too corrupt to be a state is also ridiculous. The DC government has had a couple scandals, but certainly far less than many actual states (New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, and Louisiana come to mind). And despite any corruption, the DC government is actually quite competent, which is more than can be said for many states.
DC has had more than just a "couple" of scandals.
List of federal political scandals in the United States
The argument that the federal government needs to control the seat of government also doesn't make sense. I think most DC residents don't give a damn if the feds want to retain control over the National Mall. No one lives there anyway except for the Obamas. But the rest of the District should be under the rule of the people who actually live in the District.
How does it not make sense? The Federal government needs a place where they are free from state control. What you want to do is narrow the area in which the Federal government controls its seat. What if the Federal government needs more land to grow on? Will DC as a state willingly give up control of something that it has had use of for a long time? More than likely not. Because that then reduces them. So much land was set aside for DC so that the Federal government had a place to grow as needed.
Please translate this into comprehensible English if you want a response.
You are trying to compare a dictatorship form of government with that of a democratic form of government. That is like comparing apples and pizza. What makes the two even more desparate is that in the US's case our government is limited...unlike most governments in the world. Even countries that are considered democratic now are not nearly as limited as that of the US government.
I think you underestimate the benefit of being able to schedule a meeting with someone face-to-face instead of faxing a document or using Skype. Or the benefit of being able to walk across the street to the next door agency, instead of making a phone call. I agree that it's more possible now to disperse SOME agencies throughout the country (and I'm not opposed to that happening), but it still makes sense for the bulk of them to be concentrated in close physical proximity.
Schedules for face to face talks is still easily doable. People do this now even if the person that they are going to talk to is on the other side of the world.
Also being able to walk across the street to the next door agency is also still doable as anyone working in DC will be doing just that...working next door to other agencies. And as you agree that we need agencies in close proximity to each other then what better way to do so than to get rid of all the personal homes/buisnesses that may be between two agencies?
And I think the bolded part confuses the cause with the effect. In many cases, it's not that the capital happens to be located in a city...the city exists BECAUSE that's where the capital is. If the federal government was moved from DC to a cornfield in Kansas, there would be a city there in less than a year.
Not if people were denied from moving into that area.
OK, let's assume that we decided to follow Burma's example and mandated an area where only the government was allowed to go, and the riffraff was kept out. Well, where are all those congressmen going to stay when they're in this restricted area? I guess they'll need apartments...so we'll allow a few apartment managers in, so that the congressmen have a place to stay. Now what are those apartment managers going to eat? OK, I guess we'll allow McDonald's to set up shop in the restricted area too. Where are those McDonald's workers going to buy their daily living supplies? Fine, we'll let Wal-Mart in so that they have a place to shop. Who is going to build the Wal-Mart? We'll let some architects and construction workers in too. Who is going to attend to their medical needs? I guess we'll need some doctors and dentists. Etc, etc.
And boom, you have a city.
Why does an apartment manager even need to be hired? Can rooms not be set aside for the specific purpose of sleeping and maybe a couple for entertainment (ie tv/movies, pool, whatever) Its not like the congressmen have to live there 24/7/365. And even if you do hire someone to take care of those apartments why do they have to live there to do so? Can't they commute to thier job just like everyone else? Assuming of course that a congressmen would even need to stay in DC overnight.
As for food, Congress currently has a service that provides them with food. Cooks can be hired to work in kitchens to provide for food. Again, they can commute.
No need for a wal-mart. Supplies can be carted in just like regular buisnesses carts them into thier store. IE buy the needed supplies and store them in appropriate areas.
If anything needs built then the contractors can commute to the job site just like they do with any other job site.
If medical assistance is needed there can be a hospital staff available...they can commute just like other hospital's staff does.
See, thats the thing about the wonderful transporation methods we have available to us today. People can commute. DC after all only has 61 miles worth of landmass. You can drive across it in 1 hour easily. So at most people that regularly worked in DC would have to drive 2 hrs, just to get to work...only would take minuets to get to from one agency to another if everything was in close proximity. Hell, I live in an area where it is common to drive 3 hours to work every day (sometimes more depending on the work). Another advantage that commuters would have is that they would be able to get to work alot easier due to less traffic compared to what a city has.
