3 ms·

But does the Federal gov have to ID citizens? Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? We keep assuming that a massive top-heavy and easily corrupta

But does the *Federal* gov have to ID citizens? Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? We keep assuming that a massive top-heavy and easily corruptable Fed gov is the only option. It's not. We're getting what we're getting becuase we're keep buying the ruse, the status quo, instead of insisting on a system that protects us in the way the founding documents intend.

pjc50 3y ago
I've never understood the US belief that the states are less corruptible than the Federal government when the opposite seems to prevail in many places, and local government seems to be even worse.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  No one said the odds of corruption are less. But when everything is top heavy and centralized, the economies of scale for corruption are much better. That is, for example, buy off a single Fed official vs buy off 50 similar officials at the state level. And if someone tries that and one state gets exposed that's a red flag for all the other states to check their shit. States are the equivalent of a diversified stock portfolio. The Fed gov is like betting it all on Enron.
- toast0 3y ago
  It's a lot easier to escape state corruption than federal corruption. If I don't like how my state maintains its affairs, I can move to one of the other 49 states (or territories) with relative ease. If I don't like how the US maintains its affairs, I have to convince another country to accept me, and as a US citizen, I've still got a US paperwork burden unless I renounce citizenship (which isn't easy either).
lupire 3y ago
We certainly could run Federal taxes through States (mandate states to assess and tax income, use the Feds only to investigate states, not investigate individuals), but that requires an attitude of anti-Federalism that is too pedantic for the average government official or citizen who only has headspace for or "government", and is opposed by the modern Federalists who favor a stronger union (intentional power, less civil war) over general independence and local control. anti-Federalists lose because the governments they build are structurally weaker than Federalist. Similar to how the extreme end of Anti-Federalism, "we don't need laws; everyone should just be nice" is a failed model for practical government.
dheera 3y ago
> Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? Why not the other way around? Abolish states. This is one country. Considering I can drive from San Francisco to New York without passport checks, I shouldn't have to pay different taxes depending on where along that route I decide to set up a home.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  You musta missed the hint in the name. United...STATES. smh
c0pium 3y ago
Yes. It does. It can choose to outsource some of the verification pieces to the several states (e.g the REAL ID act) but the government needs a way to uniquely identify residents that it interacts with. The founding documents make this very clear, I recommend giving them a read.

But does the *Federal* gov have to ID citizens? Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? We keep assuming that a massive top-heavy and easily corrupta

pjc50 3y ago

I've never understood the US belief that the states are less corruptible than the Federal government when the opposite seems to prevail in many places, and local government seems to be even worse.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
No one said the odds of corruption are less. But when everything is top heavy and centralized, the economies of scale for corruption are much better. That is, for example, buy off a single Fed official vs buy off 50 similar officials at the state level. And if someone tries that and one state gets exposed that's a red flag for all the other states to check their shit. States are the equivalent of a diversified stock portfolio. The Fed gov is like betting it all on Enron.
toast0 3y ago
It's a lot easier to escape state corruption than federal corruption. If I don't like how my state maintains its affairs, I can move to one of the other 49 states (or territories) with relative ease. If I don't like how the US maintains its affairs, I have to convince another country to accept me, and as a US citizen, I've still got a US paperwork burden unless I renounce citizenship (which isn't easy either).

lupire 3y ago

We certainly could run Federal taxes through States (mandate states to assess and tax income, use the Feds only to investigate states, not investigate individuals), but that requires an attitude of anti-Federalism that is too pedantic for the average government official or citizen who only has headspace for or "government", and is opposed by the modern Federalists who favor a stronger union (intentional power, less civil war) over general independence and local control. anti-Federalists lose because the governments they build are structurally weaker than Federalist. Similar to how the extreme end of Anti-Federalism, "we don't need laws; everyone should just be nice" is a failed model for practical government.

dheera 3y ago

> Why can't that be the responsiblity of the states? Why not the other way around? Abolish states. This is one country. Considering I can drive from San Francisco to New York without passport checks, I shouldn't have to pay different taxes depending on where along that route I decide to set up a home.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
You musta missed the hint in the name. United...STATES. smh

c0pium 3y ago

Yes. It does. It can choose to outsource some of the verification pieces to the several states (e.g the REAL ID act) but the government needs a way to uniquely identify residents that it interacts with. The founding documents make this very clear, I recommend giving them a read.