4 ms·
Reduce the power of the govt to regulate things at the federal level and instead move that power to the states. This will return power to the people, and people
by hobobaggins 2y ago
Reduce the power of the govt to regulate things at the federal level and instead move that power to the states. This will return power to the people, and people will naturally move to states that are delivering for them (whatever that is that they're looking for).
Across 50 states, this makes it 50 times harder (literally) to practice regulatory capture, and 50 times as likely that they'll be caught out by it, and because news travels at the speed of light today (unlike in the Constitutional era), 50 times as likely that the other state residents will find out about it.
Everything becomes fifty times better once we just return to the principles of federalism: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment)
Decentralization still works. Push the power back downward to the people who care the most -- you and me. Even though it's one of the rare examples of a federal governing agency that is mostly apolitical and actually functions semi-effectively, the FTC, for example, is a largely pointless, neutered entity that pales in comparison to state powers. For example, the state Attorneys General were able to effectively destroy Big Tobacco. The federal government didn't even come close.
- consteval 2y agoThis just doesn't work because MOST companies are multi-state. Hell, most are multi-national in the new globalized world. So you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
- b3ing 2y agoYeah and only 1 or 2 states will get around to doing anything about that 5-10 years down the road.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoPeople cannot move so easily. Some states have more influence than others. It also makes the decision of 'where' to move more complex. Do I choose a state where my daughters have few rights or one where corporations control everything or where the pollution is so bad my kid's IQ will suffer?
- fragmede 2y agoAlso, the one without school shootings please.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoStates have open borders, so I'm afraid that can't be solved by local measure alone
- Hikikomori 2y agoSounds like a free market approach, we know how that usually goes, and we already see how bad it is for women and abortions.
- tekknik 2y agoIt seems like most of the problems with abortions are seeking one when you want one and don’t need one and also live in a state that outlaws them. In fact recently I read an article where the Drs refused a medically necessary abortion and even the judge said they were cleared given the situation. when will people stop being controlling and learn there’s two sides to this?
- consteval 2y agoBecause there aren't actually two sides to this, because even an anti-abortion stance doesn't save lives in the long run. Also, yeah duh Doctors are scared. That's called a "chilling effect", and it's 100% intentional by the legislature. Most "pro-life" politicians are completely anti-abortion, including in extreme cases such as rape. They're also almost always anti-contraception, which is hypocritical but also obvious.
- tekknik 2y ago> Because there aren't actually two sides to this, because even an anti-abortion stance doesn't save lives in the long run. No really there is just two sides, wanting to kill an unborn child and wanting to protect it. > Also, yeah duh Doctors are scared. That's called a "chilling effect", and it's 100% intentional by the legislature. You missed the point. Given the laws they were authorized to perform an abortion. They chose not to do it to make a point. If they were honoring their oath they’d do what’s necessary and be judged later as their oath requires. > Most "pro-life" politicians are completely anti-abortion, including in extreme cases such as rape. All are. How about we solve rape instead of using it as an excuse to kill unborn children? > They're also almost always anti-contraception, which is hypocritical but also obvious. Citations needed. Some are sure, but you’re conflating an anti abortion stance with religion which is flawed.