6 ms·

>> decentralize power back to the states Why decentralize power back to the states? What is it about the states that make them the right level to delegate powe

>> decentralize power back to the states Why decentralize power back to the states? What is it about the states that make them the right level to delegate power to? A large point of what I took from the article is that states are simultaneously too large (because they encompass metro areas and rural areas that often have little in common, both in terms of economic and social outlook) and too small (because they encourage race to the bottom competition between states who in many ways have common interests). When you devolve power to a lower body, you are doing a form of central planning because you're determining what those lower bodies should be. So we should do it right. That might mean that states aren't the only body to consider. >> They are the result of ... the political processes we already had in place You can't assign this causality with certainty. They may have also arisen despite the political processes we have in place.

clarkmoody 11y ago
> They are the result of the market and political processes we already had in place. Fixed that for you. The market is far more important in shaping the economy that the state.
- matthewowen 11y ago
  I didn't quibble with that part. I omitted it for clarity because I only intended to address the other part. I don't think that's controversial practice when quoting.
nogbit 11y ago
Because it was/is a good balance. You can take your logic all the way down to a city or all the way up to a nation and delegate or not. Having vastly different states from one another gives a citizen of a nation the freedom to easily move to somewhere else where the prospects are better and or where it aligns with your way of life more.
- matthewowen 11y ago
  Sure. But why these states in particular? You don't think it's possible that there might be a better configuration of borders/regions? It seems improbable to me that by chance we landed on the optimal structure as these borders were defined in the years spanning from colonization to the early 20th century.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    Which state borders would you re-draw?
    - empath75 11y ago
      Md, DC and Virginia come to mind. The DC suburbs and the rest of va and md might as well be different countries.
- maus42 11y ago
  But does the state level apparatus provide the best balance today?
- tryitnow 11y ago
  Why is it a good balance? All you've done is state that "my idea is good because my idea is good." A better response would be to devolve power to CSA - combined statistical areas. These are geographic units defined by economic interactions (measured in part by commuting distances). See, CSA's make sense because they have a rationale based in recent experience. State boundaries from over a century ago do not.
intrasight 11y ago
I agree that "decentralize back to states" is no solution. States have, for the most part, shown themselves to be poor stewards of power. Achieving the right balance of power at each level is the challenge.
- ende 11y ago
  No more than any other level of government left unchecked. The pendulum has now swung the other way, and there's probably an optimal Goldilocks zone somewhere in the middle. You're right that it's about balancing the authority of government at different levels against each other.
caseysoftware 11y ago
> When you devolve power to a lower body, you are doing a form of central planning because you're determining what those lower bodies should be. So wee should do it right. That might mean that states aren't the only body to consider. In software development, we've moved power from a Big Design Up Front (aka waterfall) planned by a few to a series of teams, each with core specialties, areas of control, and many degrees of freedom but still have interfaces, agreements, and goals to tie them all together. It's because we know that the waterfall process can't have all the information up front, can't see all the risks and opportunities, and can only be as good as the experience and foresight (sometimes guessing) of the few in charge who also happen to be the furthest from the problem. Why is it bizarre to consider a similar approach to a much more complex system?
- matthewowen 11y ago
  I don't think it is bizarre. What makes you think I do? I agree that it's a great idea to delegate powers to lower bodies. But you have to decide what those lower bodies should be. I'm just arguing that the states (as currently formed and defined) might not be the best bodies.
- bsder 11y ago
  And yet our most reliable systems are all effectively Big Design Up Front (aka waterfall). And, in fact, the poster child for "agile" was the Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation which was a gigantic FAILURE precisely because of all the complexity which "agile" never handled. Complexity doesn't magically go away just because you break things into smaller pieces.
  - jholman 11y ago
    C3 was a failure for whom? All of the planners and senior engineers went on to spectacularly successful careers as Agile "thought leaders". Sounds like a rousing success to me. :D I, too, find it funny that people whose main large-project experience is C3 use it as evidence that they should be trusted with anything.
- metasean 11y ago
baddox 11y ago
> What is it about the states that make them the right level to delegate power to? Nothing in particular, but states are smaller than the federal government. For most things, more local government is better in my opinion.
gdudeman 11y ago
Spot on with the too large / too small argument. I think the key point you allude to here is that there is nothing sacred about 50 states or their boundaries. The article suggests exactly the parent's argument: decentralize power back to the states (and redraw the boundaries so the states make sense).
- ende 11y ago
  You can't just 'redraw' state boundaries though. The core fallacy in this kind of thinking is that the existing political geography is all the result of some top-down design and thus subject to top-down revision. The 'United States' is more than just a name, it's a literal description. The US Federal Government is essentially a super-national body that is the product of a treaty process not too unlike that which we've more recently witnessed in the founding of the European Union. The vesting of partial sovereignty from the constituent states into the federal state does not negate the sovereignty that is retained by the constituent states. They are not mere administrative divisions subject to the redistricting whims of some legislative body.
bcg1 11y ago
For one, the Constitution already has a legal framework for decentralization, and that is the states. Also, states already have governments etc, so from a pragmatic standpoint transferring power to them can potentially be done without setting up new centers of power that overlap existing structures. Unfortunately the Constitution prohibits breaking up states without their consent, so short of a Constitutional amendment it seems unlikely that these advantages could be obtained with entities smaller than the existing states. I agree with your premise (I think); personally I prefer the ninth amendment to the tenth. Certainly however, I would favor d?evolving power to the states instead of pushing power up the totem pole through regionalism.
lstroud 11y ago
The smaller the project/team, the easier it is to recognize mistakes and change direction. At the federal level, competing interests make that nearly impossible.

clarkmoody 11y ago

> They are the result of the market and political processes we already had in place. Fixed that for you. The market is far more important in shaping the economy that the state.

matthewowen 11y ago
I didn't quibble with that part. I omitted it for clarity because I only intended to address the other part. I don't think that's controversial practice when quoting.

nogbit 11y ago

Because it was/is a good balance. You can take your logic all the way down to a city or all the way up to a nation and delegate or not. Having vastly different states from one another gives a citizen of a nation the freedom to easily move to somewhere else where the prospects are better and or where it aligns with your way of life more.

matthewowen 11y ago
Sure. But why these states in particular? You don't think it's possible that there might be a better configuration of borders/regions? It seems improbable to me that by chance we landed on the optimal structure as these borders were defined in the years spanning from colonization to the early 20th century.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Which state borders would you re-draw?
  - empath75 11y ago
    Md, DC and Virginia come to mind. The DC suburbs and the rest of va and md might as well be different countries.
maus42 11y ago
But does the state level apparatus provide the best balance today?
tryitnow 11y ago
Why is it a good balance? All you've done is state that "my idea is good because my idea is good." A better response would be to devolve power to CSA - combined statistical areas. These are geographic units defined by economic interactions (measured in part by commuting distances). See, CSA's make sense because they have a rationale based in recent experience. State boundaries from over a century ago do not.

intrasight 11y ago

I agree that "decentralize back to states" is no solution. States have, for the most part, shown themselves to be poor stewards of power. Achieving the right balance of power at each level is the challenge.

ende 11y ago
No more than any other level of government left unchecked. The pendulum has now swung the other way, and there's probably an optimal Goldilocks zone somewhere in the middle. You're right that it's about balancing the authority of government at different levels against each other.

caseysoftware 11y ago

> When you devolve power to a lower body, you are doing a form of central planning because you're determining what those lower bodies should be. So wee should do it right. That might mean that states aren't the only body to consider. In software development, we've moved power from a Big Design Up Front (aka waterfall) planned by a few to a series of teams, each with core specialties, areas of control, and many degrees of freedom but still have interfaces, agreements, and goals to tie them all together. It's because we know that the waterfall process can't have all the information up front, can't see all the risks and opportunities, and can only be as good as the experience and foresight (sometimes guessing) of the few in charge who also happen to be the furthest from the problem. Why is it bizarre to consider a similar approach to a much more complex system?

matthewowen 11y ago
I don't think it is bizarre. What makes you think I do? I agree that it's a great idea to delegate powers to lower bodies. But you have to decide what those lower bodies should be. I'm just arguing that the states (as currently formed and defined) might not be the best bodies.
bsder 11y ago
And yet our most reliable systems are all effectively Big Design Up Front (aka waterfall). And, in fact, the poster child for "agile" was the Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation which was a gigantic FAILURE precisely because of all the complexity which "agile" never handled. Complexity doesn't magically go away just because you break things into smaller pieces.
- jholman 11y ago
  C3 was a failure for whom? All of the planners and senior engineers went on to spectacularly successful careers as Agile "thought leaders". Sounds like a rousing success to me. :D I, too, find it funny that people whose main large-project experience is C3 use it as evidence that they should be trusted with anything.
metasean 11y ago

baddox 11y ago

> What is it about the states that make them the right level to delegate power to? Nothing in particular, but states are smaller than the federal government. For most things, more local government is better in my opinion.

gdudeman 11y ago

Spot on with the too large / too small argument. I think the key point you allude to here is that there is nothing sacred about 50 states or their boundaries. The article suggests exactly the parent's argument: decentralize power back to the states (and redraw the boundaries so the states make sense).

ende 11y ago
You can't just 'redraw' state boundaries though. The core fallacy in this kind of thinking is that the existing political geography is all the result of some top-down design and thus subject to top-down revision. The 'United States' is more than just a name, it's a literal description. The US Federal Government is essentially a super-national body that is the product of a treaty process not too unlike that which we've more recently witnessed in the founding of the European Union. The vesting of partial sovereignty from the constituent states into the federal state does not negate the sovereignty that is retained by the constituent states. They are not mere administrative divisions subject to the redistricting whims of some legislative body.

bcg1 11y ago

For one, the Constitution already has a legal framework for decentralization, and that is the states. Also, states already have governments etc, so from a pragmatic standpoint transferring power to them can potentially be done without setting up new centers of power that overlap existing structures. Unfortunately the Constitution prohibits breaking up states without their consent, so short of a Constitutional amendment it seems unlikely that these advantages could be obtained with entities smaller than the existing states. I agree with your premise (I think); personally I prefer the ninth amendment to the tenth. Certainly however, I would favor d?evolving power to the states instead of pushing power up the totem pole through regionalism.

lstroud 11y ago

The smaller the project/team, the easier it is to recognize mistakes and change direction. At the federal level, competing interests make that nearly impossible.