> The reason why governments don't innovate faster or disrupt more is because they are responsible for the disrupted. There's some truth to what you're saying,

> The reason why governments don't innovate faster or disrupt more is because they are responsible for the disrupted. There's some truth to what you're saying, but we're all talking as if an enormous government (the national U.S. government) is the only way to attack issues. For reference, the U.S. populace is the third largest one in the world, and it's certainly a very diverse one. Being all things to all those people is a very tall order. Keeping more issues at the state and local level allows for faster innovation, faster turnover of elected officials, smaller feedback loops, less expensive communication with elected officials, etc. It might not be appropriate to regulate the internet at the local level, but if more were decided that way (i.e., most social issues), there would be fewer national issues left to keep track of and debate. Issues like data privacy would therefore be more prominent in national elections. I frankly don't see how we can have such a large and detail-oriented national government long term. If China and India "crush" the U.S., it will at least partly due to the unforced error of the ever-growing scope of national U.S. politics.