5 ms·

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 di

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.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      > That's what's happening now, isn't it? "Blue" states are paying in more so "red" states can pay in less? Do you think it'd happen without a federal government?
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        It's an interesting question. Keeping in mind the levels of "foreign" aid we maintain now, I would suspect... yes? Is there a transition that American politics makes from the state level to the federal level, that makes us more generous? Is there a reason for that transition, or is it simply magical?
        rbanffy 9y ago
        Foreign aid is just a tool in the soft diplomacy spectrum. It's not usually given out of generosity, but to influence local politics, develop markets etc...
        jessaustin 9y ago
        Is there any reason to believe that those factors would not apply?
        rbanffy 9y ago
        One good reason of a stable relationship (as in states of a single country) is not needing to spend time and energy with diplomacy, freeing those resources for use abroad. If the military-industrial complex could be coopted into building schools, roads, railroads and hospitals instead of weapons, soft diplomacy could change the face of the planet. For a fraction of current prices.
        joelhoffman 9y ago
        In the case of California specifically, the difference between federal taxes paid and federal money received represents about 7% of the state budget. Foreign aid is about 1% of the federal budget, though. Why would California spend more? (Edit: Of course its budget might have to triple if it didn't get all that federal money, so there you go.)
  - saiya-jin 9y ago
    look at Switzerland, it has exactly this in tiny version - 26 cantons, highly independent from central government but not completely. some cantons are super rich (zurich, geneva), and some much poorer (ie graubunden). rich contribute to poor. as long as there is feeling of 'being together in federation', this is not an issue. it works. even though 7 million country has 4 distinct official languages, and most inhabitants don't speak all of them (I've yet to meet a single swiss citizen who speaks well swiss-german, italian and french, not even including romansch because that's language of maybe 50k citizens only).
  - simonsarris 9y ago
    Doesn't the EU do that all the time, to develop the less developed members? (Read: Mostly Poland) http://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,dok.html http://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,dok.h... > The value of total European Union funds allocation for particular EU member states, according to the EU budget for 2014-2020, as agreed during the EU summit in Brussels on February 8, 2013
WalterSear 9y ago
As difficult as it is to admit, I don't see them resolving their problems until they have no choice.

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.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    > That's what's happening now, isn't it? "Blue" states are paying in more so "red" states can pay in less? Do you think it'd happen without a federal government?
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      It's an interesting question. Keeping in mind the levels of "foreign" aid we maintain now, I would suspect... yes? Is there a transition that American politics makes from the state level to the federal level, that makes us more generous? Is there a reason for that transition, or is it simply magical?
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        Foreign aid is just a tool in the soft diplomacy spectrum. It's not usually given out of generosity, but to influence local politics, develop markets etc...
        jessaustin 9y ago
        Is there any reason to believe that those factors would not apply?
        rbanffy 9y ago
        One good reason of a stable relationship (as in states of a single country) is not needing to spend time and energy with diplomacy, freeing those resources for use abroad. If the military-industrial complex could be coopted into building schools, roads, railroads and hospitals instead of weapons, soft diplomacy could change the face of the planet. For a fraction of current prices.
      - joelhoffman 9y ago
        In the case of California specifically, the difference between federal taxes paid and federal money received represents about 7% of the state budget. Foreign aid is about 1% of the federal budget, though. Why would California spend more? (Edit: Of course its budget might have to triple if it didn't get all that federal money, so there you go.)
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  look at Switzerland, it has exactly this in tiny version - 26 cantons, highly independent from central government but not completely. some cantons are super rich (zurich, geneva), and some much poorer (ie graubunden). rich contribute to poor. as long as there is feeling of 'being together in federation', this is not an issue. it works. even though 7 million country has 4 distinct official languages, and most inhabitants don't speak all of them (I've yet to meet a single swiss citizen who speaks well swiss-german, italian and french, not even including romansch because that's language of maybe 50k citizens only).
- simonsarris 9y ago
  Doesn't the EU do that all the time, to develop the less developed members? (Read: Mostly Poland) http://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,dok.html http://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,dok.h... > The value of total European Union funds allocation for particular EU member states, according to the EU budget for 2014-2020, as agreed during the EU summit in Brussels on February 8, 2013

WalterSear 9y ago

As difficult as it is to admit, I don't see them resolving their problems until they have no choice.