3 ms·
> Not really. Local people suffer the most from local pollution and low local wages etc., so they have the most incentive to strike a reasonable balance. I don
by kbenson 6y ago
> Not really. Local people suffer the most from local pollution and low local wages etc., so they have the most incentive to strike a reasonable balance.
I don't know. On the one hand, you can look at the Kansas Experiment[1] as vindication of the federal and state system, where the states experiment. On the other hand, you could see that as stupid people (or at least some a bit divorced from reality) willing to throw caution to the wind to the detriment of their constituents, and for the most part not learn anything from the fallout.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
- bhupy 6y agoAt least the damage from those stupid people is well contained, as opposed to the alternative where stupid people come into power at the Federal level every 4-8 years and muck it up for everybody.
- kbenson 6y agoI guess that's true. I imagine the less polarized the environment is the more beneficial the Federal approach is, because you get sane checks and balances and consensus on things before accepted. The more polarized it is, the better the compartmentalization of states is at keeping the crazies at each end of the spectrum from causing too much damage to everyone at once.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoWhen there is a lot of consensus then the states just independently decide to do similar things as each other, so it works fine in that case too.