3 ms·
That supports my argument though. A highly populated country is much more likely to have citizens with clashing philosophies or cultures. Subdividing it to smal
by tomatotomato37 4y ago
That supports my argument though. A highly populated country is much more likely to have citizens with clashing philosophies or cultures. Subdividing it to smaller states results in a state having less citizen "worth" but more efficient application of that worth overall.
- bequanna 4y agoLooking at the US specifically, what do you think about the Federal govt ceding power to groups “closer” to the individuals? Dedicating more budget and leaving more laws up to localities like States, municipalities, etc.
- tomatotomato37 4y agoI've always been a fan of state over federal, but I don't think a lot of our states are "rich" enough to balance out the others. I'd imagine an optimal balance would be several of the lower population states be merged together based on culture until we have ~10 states with the wealth of Germany or some such, but then dumping a lot of the federal powers to before Wickard v. Filburn. The thing is that the impotence seems to kick in on the "super-large" continent sized countries, but that doesn't mean there isn't a minimum size too, of which a Vermont or Kentucky doesn't really meet compared to a Texas or California. It should also be noted these changes would only practically be achieved with a time machine, because the social/economic/military cost of changing anything involving the foundation of the US nowadays would be apocalyptic