5 ms·

Or, you know, decrease the size of the federal government and then give the states enough power to function much like their own countries. why must we always f

Or, you know, decrease the size of the federal government and then give the states enough power to function much like their own countries. why must we always focus towards a stronger federal government? The most functional countries seem to all have a small population (e.g. Norway, Sweden). Whether you prefer socialism or capitalism, we can all see that neither work optimally with a mega-large population. Breaking up power would break up corruption and make it more manageable.

sverige 9y ago
Maybe that will be the result of the author's master plan of organizing insurrection through the power of software and the internet is successful. But he doesn't say what happens after the insurrection, so there's no real alternative offered other than chaos once the system breaks down. It's hard to predict what system will arise out of the ashes if he is successful. It's kind of sad, really. It feels like I'm back in the '90s reading Usenet posts on alt.society.anarchy or alt.politics.usa.
- perlpimp 9y ago
  I was wondering why people who advocate use of blockchain for voting. now it makes sense.
- evanlivingston 9y ago
  I don't see it as sad. The most important step in making the world a better place is using our imaginations. I think this is a core part of radical systems of thought. Anarchists would invite even you to imagine what would come next rather than a minority of them dictating a system that is prescribed. I think it's also a problematic to percieve the system braking down as resulting in chaos. It's the desire of people for peace that preserves peace, not the system. Also, saying the system isn't choatic now is misleading. The chaos is just both hidden and displaced.
549362-30499 9y ago
That would devastate the huge swaths of rural America dependent on federal subsidies for income, medical care, fuel, etc. Are those people supposed to simply die? Become refugees in the coastal states that generate the bulk of the revenue?
- rwmj 9y ago
  Small government doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be a transfer of wealth between states. But on the other hand maybe it is better if people move to jobs. I notice you use the perjorative word "refugees", but they're really people moving for work so "economic migrant" might be less charged.
  - 549362-30499 9y ago
    I don't think of refugee as a pejorative, at least not in this context. They wouldn't be economic migrants because they would be migrating to the wealthy states specifically to take advantage of the social programs those states are funding/would fund on a state level. A corn farmer whose income vanishes because his federal subsidies are taken away isn't going to migrate to San Francisco for a tech job, he'll migrate because he needs to see a doctor.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > Small government doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be a transfer of wealth between states. I will remain skeptical until I see a state willing to give resources away to improve living conditions of other states.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      That's what's happening now, isn't it? "Blue" states are paying in more so "red" states can pay in less? I suspect it isn't only because of the relative poverty of "red" states. Rather, it's an unavoidable compromise among states with different political preferences. The reason that "red" states will agree to greater entitlement spending than their voters prefer is because they are bribed to do so. The reason "blue" states will agree to the bribery is because it helps them fulfill their voters' preferences. If decentralization ends this cooperative arrangement, it won't be a disaster. "Red" states will have to reorganize their spending priorities. "Blue" states will have a little more money to spend on whatever. Life will go on, but just a bit differently in South Dakota than in Oregon.
ModernMech 9y ago
With efforts to disenfranchise minority voters underway in many states [1][2], I'm not sure giving them more power is the best idea. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/24/judge-gop-vote-suppression-tactics-have-no-legitimacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/0... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/voter-suppression-in-north-carolina.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/voter-suppression...
- devmunchies 9y ago
  The federal govt would still be able to keep the states in check. It would just delegate more responsibilities and liberties to the states. I'm not talking about disbanding the supreme court or anything.
  - ModernMech 9y ago
    yeah, it's hard to tell what people mean when they say "smaller government". In today's climate, that's come to mean the extreme "make it so small you can drown it in the tub" version of small.
    - Fordrus 9y ago
      I cannot express how fantastically hilarious I found that expression, I am absolutely going to be using that as shorthand for the position from here on out! I often have the same worry when it comes to people asserting that state governments should be more able to function like smaller countries- I worry in particular that to some traditional enemies it would our individual parts "small enough to drown it in the tub."
      - WalterSear 9y ago
        "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
analog31 9y ago
Imagine dealing with all of the refugees, chased from one state to another, as every state tries to give itself an economic advantage by deciding who's a citizen and who isn't. The states are already doing this to the fullest extent that they can get away with.
def- 9y ago
> The most functional countries seem to all have a small population The least functional ones also have a small population. See http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf
- devmunchies 9y ago
  yes, there are dysfunctional governments at every scale, but the functional ones seem to always be small.

sverige 9y ago

Maybe that will be the result of the author's master plan of organizing insurrection through the power of software and the internet is successful. But he doesn't say what happens after the insurrection, so there's no real alternative offered other than chaos once the system breaks down. It's hard to predict what system will arise out of the ashes if he is successful. It's kind of sad, really. It feels like I'm back in the '90s reading Usenet posts on alt.society.anarchy or alt.politics.usa.

perlpimp 9y ago
I was wondering why people who advocate use of blockchain for voting. now it makes sense.
evanlivingston 9y ago
I don't see it as sad. The most important step in making the world a better place is using our imaginations. I think this is a core part of radical systems of thought. Anarchists would invite even you to imagine what would come next rather than a minority of them dictating a system that is prescribed. I think it's also a problematic to percieve the system braking down as resulting in chaos. It's the desire of people for peace that preserves peace, not the system. Also, saying the system isn't choatic now is misleading. The chaos is just both hidden and displaced.

549362-30499 9y ago

That would devastate the huge swaths of rural America dependent on federal subsidies for income, medical care, fuel, etc. Are those people supposed to simply die? Become refugees in the coastal states that generate the bulk of the revenue?

rwmj 9y ago
Small government doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be a transfer of wealth between states. But on the other hand maybe it is better if people move to jobs. I notice you use the perjorative word "refugees", but they're really people moving for work so "economic migrant" might be less charged.
- 549362-30499 9y ago
  I don't think of refugee as a pejorative, at least not in this context. They wouldn't be economic migrants because they would be migrating to the wealthy states specifically to take advantage of the social programs those states are funding/would fund on a state level. A corn farmer whose income vanishes because his federal subsidies are taken away isn't going to migrate to San Francisco for a tech job, he'll migrate because he needs to see a doctor.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > Small government doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be a transfer of wealth between states. I will remain skeptical until I see a state willing to give resources away to improve living conditions of other states.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    That's what's happening now, isn't it? "Blue" states are paying in more so "red" states can pay in less? I suspect it isn't only because of the relative poverty of "red" states. Rather, it's an unavoidable compromise among states with different political preferences. The reason that "red" states will agree to greater entitlement spending than their voters prefer is because they are bribed to do so. The reason "blue" states will agree to the bribery is because it helps them fulfill their voters' preferences. If decentralization ends this cooperative arrangement, it won't be a disaster. "Red" states will have to reorganize their spending priorities. "Blue" states will have a little more money to spend on whatever. Life will go on, but just a bit differently in South Dakota than in Oregon.

ModernMech 9y ago

With efforts to disenfranchise minority voters underway in many states [1][2], I'm not sure giving them more power is the best idea. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/24/judge-gop-vote-suppression-tactics-have-no-legitimacy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/0... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/voter-suppression-in-north-carolina.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/voter-suppression...

devmunchies 9y ago
The federal govt would still be able to keep the states in check. It would just delegate more responsibilities and liberties to the states. I'm not talking about disbanding the supreme court or anything.
- ModernMech 9y ago
  yeah, it's hard to tell what people mean when they say "smaller government". In today's climate, that's come to mean the extreme "make it so small you can drown it in the tub" version of small.
  - Fordrus 9y ago
    I cannot express how fantastically hilarious I found that expression, I am absolutely going to be using that as shorthand for the position from here on out! I often have the same worry when it comes to people asserting that state governments should be more able to function like smaller countries- I worry in particular that to some traditional enemies it would our individual parts "small enough to drown it in the tub."
    - WalterSear 9y ago
      "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

analog31 9y ago

Imagine dealing with all of the refugees, chased from one state to another, as every state tries to give itself an economic advantage by deciding who's a citizen and who isn't. The states are already doing this to the fullest extent that they can get away with.

def- 9y ago

> The most functional countries seem to all have a small population The least functional ones also have a small population. See http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf

devmunchies 9y ago
yes, there are dysfunctional governments at every scale, but the functional ones seem to always be small.