4 ms·

Whichever liberties you prefer, what makes a state line a better boundary than a federal one for choosing a policy?

dane-pgp 5y ago
What makes a federal/national one better than an international one, or an individual one, for that matter? I admit, it's not an easy question, and my suggestion isn't guaranteed to work, but if there is complete deadlock and extreme polarization (potentially leading to violent conflict) at the national level, it's at least plausible that delegating some of those policies to smaller, more politically homogeneous, units might reduce the tensions, and make it easier for people to vote with their feet if they are unhappy with the rules they live under.
- evrydayhustling 5y ago
  I think it's interesting that people on both sides of the states-rights spectrum see themselves as defenders of liberties. Even if there is conflict in the details, that is legit common ground! There's a lot of common sense power to the idea that smaller political units can reach an acceptable compromise more easily, and that having multiple governments offers some choice to those who can move. But there are big factors the other way too: - The issues that most divide our definitions of liberty are aligned with differences in urban vs rural, majority vs minority, and rich vs poor. These are clustered such that they exist at state levels as much as federal. - Smaller political units are more vulnerable to outside forces ... National parties can airdrop money into local campaigns to get strategic outcomes that have little to do with the constituents. - The citizens of smaller units tend to have more direct power relations with each other, pulling them towards policies that explicitly maintain or redistribute power. This creates big problems for the less powerful, who see their position become more engrained and who often don't have the resources to vote with their feet. None of this is an answer to "what's the best unit". I think that whichever personal liberties you value, you have to be pragmatic about who is protecting them where.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > I think it's interesting that people on both sides of the states-rights spectrum see themselves as defenders of liberties. Even if there is conflict in the details, that is legit common ground! Sure, but liberty to do what? Liberty to not do what? It is difficult to reconcile one person's liberty to marry the person they love without experiencing discrimination with another's liberty to discriminate against anyone who loves the 'wrong' people. Or the right to own other people vs. the right to be free from ownership. Does the freedom to innovate protect the generation, modification, dissemination, and implementation of ideas, or protect an inventor from having to compete with copycats? Is the right to repair the equipment you own more or less important than the right of manufacturers to devise means of preventing unauthorized modifications?
Kinrany 5y ago
There is less centralization and more opportunities to quit and go to a place you like better.
weberer 5y ago
Its easy to move to a different state if you disagree with the policies of your current state. If you disagree with a federal law, you're pretty much screwed.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  It's easy if you're single and have a decent income. Other than that, no.
  - weberer 5y ago
    Significantly easier than moving to a different country.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      If you don't have the resources to do so, the level of difficulty is identical.
      - weberer 5y ago
        This is just silly. Minimum wage workers move across state lines all the time. The distance can be just several miles in some cases. You don't really need to do anything to do it, other than make an appointment at the DMV to update your license. Aside from that, it doesn't take any more resources than moving in-state.
        MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        You are making the assumption that everyone can afford to have a car. Again, that isn't the case.
        weberer 5y ago
        No, I'm not. And this line of reasoning doesn't refute my original point anyway that moving to a different state is easier than moving to a different country. Let's try approaching this from a different angle. Let's have X be the number of Americans who have the resources, knowledge, and paperwork required to move to a different state. And lets have Y be the number of Americans who have the same requirements, but to move to a different country. Surely you can agree that X is a much larger number than Y, right?

What makes a federal/national one better than an international one, or an individual one, for that matter? I admit, it's not an easy question, and my suggestion isn't guaranteed to work, but if there is complete deadlock and extreme polarization (potentially leading to violent conflict) at the national level, it's at least plausible that delegating some of those policies to smaller, more politically homogeneous, units might reduce the tensions, and make it easier for people to vote with their feet if they are unhappy with the rules they live under.

evrydayhustling 5y ago
I think it's interesting that people on both sides of the states-rights spectrum see themselves as defenders of liberties. Even if there is conflict in the details, that is legit common ground! There's a lot of common sense power to the idea that smaller political units can reach an acceptable compromise more easily, and that having multiple governments offers some choice to those who can move. But there are big factors the other way too: - The issues that most divide our definitions of liberty are aligned with differences in urban vs rural, majority vs minority, and rich vs poor. These are clustered such that they exist at state levels as much as federal. - Smaller political units are more vulnerable to outside forces ... National parties can airdrop money into local campaigns to get strategic outcomes that have little to do with the constituents. - The citizens of smaller units tend to have more direct power relations with each other, pulling them towards policies that explicitly maintain or redistribute power. This creates big problems for the less powerful, who see their position become more engrained and who often don't have the resources to vote with their feet. None of this is an answer to "what's the best unit". I think that whichever personal liberties you value, you have to be pragmatic about who is protecting them where.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > I think it's interesting that people on both sides of the states-rights spectrum see themselves as defenders of liberties. Even if there is conflict in the details, that is legit common ground! Sure, but liberty to do what? Liberty to not do what? It is difficult to reconcile one person's liberty to marry the person they love without experiencing discrimination with another's liberty to discriminate against anyone who loves the 'wrong' people. Or the right to own other people vs. the right to be free from ownership. Does the freedom to innovate protect the generation, modification, dissemination, and implementation of ideas, or protect an inventor from having to compete with copycats? Is the right to repair the equipment you own more or less important than the right of manufacturers to devise means of preventing unauthorized modifications?

Kinrany 5y ago

There is less centralization and more opportunities to quit and go to a place you like better.

weberer 5y ago

Its easy to move to a different state if you disagree with the policies of your current state. If you disagree with a federal law, you're pretty much screwed.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
It's easy if you're single and have a decent income. Other than that, no.
- weberer 5y ago
  Significantly easier than moving to a different country.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    If you don't have the resources to do so, the level of difficulty is identical.
    - weberer 5y ago
      This is just silly. Minimum wage workers move across state lines all the time. The distance can be just several miles in some cases. You don't really need to do anything to do it, other than make an appointment at the DMV to update your license. Aside from that, it doesn't take any more resources than moving in-state.
      - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
        You are making the assumption that everyone can afford to have a car. Again, that isn't the case.
        weberer 5y ago
        No, I'm not. And this line of reasoning doesn't refute my original point anyway that moving to a different state is easier than moving to a different country. Let's try approaching this from a different angle. Let's have X be the number of Americans who have the resources, knowledge, and paperwork required to move to a different state. And lets have Y be the number of Americans who have the same requirements, but to move to a different country. Surely you can agree that X is a much larger number than Y, right?