5 ms·

I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect market testing platform for various social ideas. You don't want abortion? Make Kansas

by cubano 11y ago

I've always thought that, in the US, that States could provide a perfect market testing platform for various social ideas. You don't want abortion? Make Kansas, say, a no abortion state. Legalized drugs? Head your head to Colorado. Socialism? Sure New Hampshire is almost there already anyway. Well, you get the point. It's been proven that actual markets almost always work as well if not better than diktat, so these "experiments" could be monitored and all the rest. I mean, why not give something totally new a try? What we have now is killing people and ruining their lives as I personally live through its failings everyday.

hackerboos 11y ago
The US works well because it's united at the federal level. What you are suggesting would only work if that level didn't exist.
- cubano 11y ago
  The US works well for many reasons...being united at the federal level is only one small part of it. Look of course I am aware of legal issues and all that, but doesn't make sense to enact such sweeping legislation as legalizing drugs or socialism on a small scale first before going national?
- existencebox 11y ago
  This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal) I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist" That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.
  - linkregister 11y ago
    This is a funny statement to me, since it ignores everything that happened after 1789. The evolution of a more centralized government was the result of conscious decisions by the public and lawmakers to overcome the challenges of a loose confederation. Hell, the Constitution itself was drafted to solve the problem of arbitrarily differing business rules and trade agreements between the several states.
    - existencebox 11y ago
      I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and precedent forming which has tended to constrain state vs federal power. In fact I feel like I'd be "ignoring" more had I argued the opposite point, that states still had as significant power as they once did, since that power balance was tested as quickly as 2 years later in 1791. As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce. I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty distinctly expanded from then on.
      - linkregister 11y ago
        No you're right; I didn't fully comprehend your post. I thought you were disagreeing with the parent post but you were in fact qualifying it. I agree with everything you said.
bisRepetita 11y ago
Socialism in New Hampshire? Did you mean Vermont?
- cubano 11y ago
  Yes I did in fact, but the actual states don't really matter as much as the idea.
zanny 11y ago
The problem is you cannot test economic policy in the states. Social policy, absolutely. But if you try socialism in one state and its neighbor is a tax haven, business interests will just jump over the border and you will see wealth flight. It is too easy to move between states when you have money. It is much, much more complicated to move between countries.
- magicGLASSman 11y ago
  this fact is what makes the experiment perfect. If people all move from one place because of poor policy it will give that state the incentive to adjust their policy. People should have the freedom to chose the goverment that is most inline with their values. Forcing someone to stay somewhere and pay taxes to a say unjust war or something they are morally opposed to seem to be a terrible existence.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The problem is that there may be policies which work well if the population participates in them consistently, but which fall apart if everybody gets to pick and choose. The whole point of government is to do these things.
    - magicGLASSman 11y ago
      But if most the people agree that the policies are good and best combination of all the other states wouldn't they pay those taxes voluntarily instead of having to be coursed into paying? That is democracy right? otherwise it seems kinda selective as to whose votes mater the most.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        That works if and only if the best individual choice is also the best group choice. This isn't always true, see the Prisoners' Dilemma. For example, perhaps society benefits when you tax the wealthy to help the poor. But given the choice, the wealthy will move to where their taxes are lower, so that plan works poorly if you let individual states pick and choose. Or perhaps society benefits when you don't tax the wealthy to help the poor, and make the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps. But the poor will move to a state with more aid, again defeating the plan. Obviously there are differences between the states right now, so this isn't a total obstacle. But it really only works to the extent that there is a lack of mobility between the states (people tend to want to stay where they are), or on issues where it doesn't matter.
mikeash 11y ago
The problem is that a lot of these things are a human rights issue, and large segments of the population aren't sufficiently mobile to move to different states. So if you just allow the states to do whatever, then you're denying a bunch of people, mostly poor, human rights. Jim Crow laws are an obvious example of that sort of problem. Abortion fits pretty well too. I'd argue that drug laws are another example, although in this case we have the human rights abuses imposed from above, and some individual states trying to break out of it.
e40 11y ago
I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts, like the ones that would come out of studies like you suggest. What would happen, the results of the studies would be twisted and no further adoption would happen. It might happen because the media companies don't want whatever it is was shown to be "better". Lobbyists can overcome most facts by sheer force of their donations. Yeah, it's what has doomed our political process these days.
- cubano 11y ago
  > I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts.. What a great insight, and yes it would seem that the political aspect and confirmation-bias issues would probably render any results moot. This the age we live in I guess...seemingly solid oppo research on any subject are just a few clicks away.
pc2g4d 11y ago
I love this idea, and it has a long history. The states are known as the "laboratories of democracy". From Wikipedia[1]: "Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a 'state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Brandeis was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939. "This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social 'laboratories,' where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy

by cubano 11y ago

hackerboos 11y ago

The US works well because it's united at the federal level. What you are suggesting would only work if that level didn't exist.

cubano 11y ago
The US works well for many reasons...being united at the federal level is only one small part of it. Look of course I am aware of legal issues and all that, but doesn't make sense to enact such sweeping legislation as legalizing drugs or socialism on a small scale first before going national?
existencebox 11y ago
This is a funny statement to me, since the initial federalization was supposed to exist without predisposing a much greater exercise in states rights than what we see today. (far fewer constraints on state law from federal) I'd adjust your statement: "What you are suggesting would only work if the level (of federal power we have NOW) didn't exist" That all being said, I'm not even sure my full level of pessimism is merited; certain states had been independently experimenting with e.g. health care reform 10+ years ago which ended up forming the basis for the ACA. This sort of state based trial seems like it s exactly what the parent was suggesting, and what was alluded to in Brandeis's famous "Laboratories of democracy" quote that seems very apt to this discussion.
- linkregister 11y ago
  This is a funny statement to me, since it ignores everything that happened after 1789. The evolution of a more centralized government was the result of conscious decisions by the public and lawmakers to overcome the challenges of a loose confederation. Hell, the Constitution itself was drafted to solve the problem of arbitrarily differing business rules and trade agreements between the several states.
  - existencebox 11y ago
    I'm not sure how anything I said "ignores post 1789". In fact, my statement is precisely calling out that our history is one of incremental codification and precedent forming which has tended to constrain state vs federal power. In fact I feel like I'd be "ignoring" more had I argued the opposite point, that states still had as significant power as they once did, since that power balance was tested as quickly as 2 years later in 1791. As you say; it was drafted to solve the problem of differing business rules/trade, but the scope was originally VERY limited to interstate commerce. I simply don't see how it can be argued against that the purview has pretty distinctly expanded from then on.
    - linkregister 11y ago
      No you're right; I didn't fully comprehend your post. I thought you were disagreeing with the parent post but you were in fact qualifying it. I agree with everything you said.

bisRepetita 11y ago

Socialism in New Hampshire? Did you mean Vermont?

cubano 11y ago
Yes I did in fact, but the actual states don't really matter as much as the idea.

zanny 11y ago

The problem is you cannot test economic policy in the states. Social policy, absolutely. But if you try socialism in one state and its neighbor is a tax haven, business interests will just jump over the border and you will see wealth flight. It is too easy to move between states when you have money. It is much, much more complicated to move between countries.

magicGLASSman 11y ago
this fact is what makes the experiment perfect. If people all move from one place because of poor policy it will give that state the incentive to adjust their policy. People should have the freedom to chose the goverment that is most inline with their values. Forcing someone to stay somewhere and pay taxes to a say unjust war or something they are morally opposed to seem to be a terrible existence.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The problem is that there may be policies which work well if the population participates in them consistently, but which fall apart if everybody gets to pick and choose. The whole point of government is to do these things.
  - magicGLASSman 11y ago
    But if most the people agree that the policies are good and best combination of all the other states wouldn't they pay those taxes voluntarily instead of having to be coursed into paying? That is democracy right? otherwise it seems kinda selective as to whose votes mater the most.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      That works if and only if the best individual choice is also the best group choice. This isn't always true, see the Prisoners' Dilemma. For example, perhaps society benefits when you tax the wealthy to help the poor. But given the choice, the wealthy will move to where their taxes are lower, so that plan works poorly if you let individual states pick and choose. Or perhaps society benefits when you don't tax the wealthy to help the poor, and make the poor pull themselves up by their bootstraps. But the poor will move to a state with more aid, again defeating the plan. Obviously there are differences between the states right now, so this isn't a total obstacle. But it really only works to the extent that there is a lack of mobility between the states (people tend to want to stay where they are), or on issues where it doesn't matter.

mikeash 11y ago

The problem is that a lot of these things are a human rights issue, and large segments of the population aren't sufficiently mobile to move to different states. So if you just allow the states to do whatever, then you're denying a bunch of people, mostly poor, human rights. Jim Crow laws are an obvious example of that sort of problem. Abortion fits pretty well too. I'd argue that drug laws are another example, although in this case we have the human rights abuses imposed from above, and some individual states trying to break out of it.

e40 11y ago

I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts, like the ones that would come out of studies like you suggest. What would happen, the results of the studies would be twisted and no further adoption would happen. It might happen because the media companies don't want whatever it is was shown to be "better". Lobbyists can overcome most facts by sheer force of their donations. Yeah, it's what has doomed our political process these days.

cubano 11y ago
> I personally love the idea, but the people in the US have already proven themselves to be impervious to facts.. What a great insight, and yes it would seem that the political aspect and confirmation-bias issues would probably render any results moot. This the age we live in I guess...seemingly solid oppo research on any subject are just a few clicks away.

pc2g4d 11y ago

I love this idea, and it has a long history. The states are known as the "laboratories of democracy". From Wikipedia[1]: "Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a 'state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Brandeis was an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939. "This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social 'laboratories,' where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method." [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy