3 ms·

I've always thought more state power was probably a good thing - the US is simply so huge and diverse in thought and religion that you'll always be upsetting a

I've always thought more state power was probably a good thing - the US is simply so huge and diverse in thought and religion that you'll always be upsetting a large swath of people no matter what you decide. That said, as a fly on the wall, my obvious observation from people at large is a direct correlation between how much power they believe states should have and whether or not they belong to the party in power. So it's definitely worth the exercise of seeing if you'd feel the same way still if your exact clone ran the federal government.

pathartl 1y ago
The primary issue with state power is human rights. If you don't guarantee certain rights, some other state will gladly exploit its citizens. The neverending struggle of course is what does one consider a human right.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  If a few states work together to make interstate relocation easier, then this should be a self-correcting problem over time. As you mentioned, there is no universal agreement on human rights—the constitution enumerates some basic ones, but there is wide disagreement in interpretation even within these. If we want to avoid a constantly escalating national tug-of-war (inevitably leading IMHO to armed conflict) then local laws should be devolved to the states, with the federal government acting as referee between states and as a neutral anti-corruption enforcer. I don’t see how we get there, though. I think we may already be too far down the road of centralized power, which is likely to have very bad results for everyone in the end.
- Jensson 1y ago
  The same can be said about the federal level, no matter which level you are at they can happily exploit you, but it is much easier to leave a smaller place than a larger one, so its very preferable to have these decisions at state level than federal level.
patagurbon 1y ago
There is a fundamental issue with this kind of federalism though in that it increases strife and could easily lead to civil war. Let’s say we get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and research funding at the federal level. What happens next? The West Coast and North East form compacts, companies, or nonprofits that provide healthcare, retirement and funding for their schools. The south, parts of the Midwest, and the plains fail to do so (at least to the same level) and within a generation we have two separate countries and war.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  > within a generation we have two separate countries and war Or do we? Some states don’t seem to want these things, or at least that’s what their representatives say. So let them experiment. My guess is the loss of benefits will outweigh the meager tax savings, but there may be a couple of states that are fine with the tradeoff. As long as people can move freely, it should be a self-correcting problem. The problem with centralization is that it creates an all-or-nothing battle for federal control. Right now the people winning that battle don’t seem to share your vision for social programs. Could be an issue, especially with ongoing gerrymandering efforts! In a big country with strongly polarized political opinions, federalism is the best way to fight this sort of political capture and the associated back-and-forth escalation. As tensions boil over, the only other option that can maintain a semblance of order is brutal repression.
  - dmd 1y ago
    > as long as people can move freely But they won’t be able to. We’ve already seen this attempted (e.g. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/pressroom/first-in-the-nation-bill-would-criminalize-montanans-traveling-for-abortion-care https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/pressroom/first-in-t... ) and if we went in that direction that’s the kind of thing that would happen.
    - iamnothere 1y ago
      I’m OK with having a small but well-armed federal agency to ensure freedom of movement if that’s what it takes.
ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
>the US is simply so huge and diverse in thought and religion that you'll always be upsetting a large swath of people no matter what you decide. And Sir Peter Medawar agrees[0]: The USA is so enormous, and so numerous are its schools, colleges and religious seminaries, many devoted to special religious beliefs ranging from the unorthodox to the dotty, that we can hardly wonder at its yielding a more bounteous harvest of gobbledygook than the rest of the world put together. [0] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507 https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507

pathartl 1y ago

The primary issue with state power is human rights. If you don't guarantee certain rights, some other state will gladly exploit its citizens. The neverending struggle of course is what does one consider a human right.

iamnothere 1y ago
If a few states work together to make interstate relocation easier, then this should be a self-correcting problem over time. As you mentioned, there is no universal agreement on human rights—the constitution enumerates some basic ones, but there is wide disagreement in interpretation even within these. If we want to avoid a constantly escalating national tug-of-war (inevitably leading IMHO to armed conflict) then local laws should be devolved to the states, with the federal government acting as referee between states and as a neutral anti-corruption enforcer. I don’t see how we get there, though. I think we may already be too far down the road of centralized power, which is likely to have very bad results for everyone in the end.
Jensson 1y ago
The same can be said about the federal level, no matter which level you are at they can happily exploit you, but it is much easier to leave a smaller place than a larger one, so its very preferable to have these decisions at state level than federal level.

patagurbon 1y ago

There is a fundamental issue with this kind of federalism though in that it increases strife and could easily lead to civil war. Let’s say we get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and research funding at the federal level. What happens next? The West Coast and North East form compacts, companies, or nonprofits that provide healthcare, retirement and funding for their schools. The south, parts of the Midwest, and the plains fail to do so (at least to the same level) and within a generation we have two separate countries and war.

iamnothere 1y ago
> within a generation we have two separate countries and war Or do we? Some states don’t seem to want these things, or at least that’s what their representatives say. So let them experiment. My guess is the loss of benefits will outweigh the meager tax savings, but there may be a couple of states that are fine with the tradeoff. As long as people can move freely, it should be a self-correcting problem. The problem with centralization is that it creates an all-or-nothing battle for federal control. Right now the people winning that battle don’t seem to share your vision for social programs. Could be an issue, especially with ongoing gerrymandering efforts! In a big country with strongly polarized political opinions, federalism is the best way to fight this sort of political capture and the associated back-and-forth escalation. As tensions boil over, the only other option that can maintain a semblance of order is brutal repression.
- dmd 1y ago
  > as long as people can move freely But they won’t be able to. We’ve already seen this attempted (e.g. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/pressroom/first-in-the-nation-bill-would-criminalize-montanans-traveling-for-abortion-care https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/pressroom/first-in-t... ) and if we went in that direction that’s the kind of thing that would happen.
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    I’m OK with having a small but well-armed federal agency to ensure freedom of movement if that’s what it takes.

ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago

>the US is simply so huge and diverse in thought and religion that you'll always be upsetting a large swath of people no matter what you decide. And Sir Peter Medawar agrees[0]: The USA is so enormous, and so numerous are its schools, colleges and religious seminaries, many devoted to special religious beliefs ranging from the unorthodox to the dotty, that we can hardly wonder at its yielding a more bounteous harvest of gobbledygook than the rest of the world put together. [0] https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507 https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1064507