3 ms·

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 Medica

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.
    - dmd 1y ago
      Great! You’ve just put the final piece in place for the civil war.
      - iamnothere 1y ago
        I disagree, and the status quo is taking us in that direction regardless.
wakawaka28 1y ago
>The West Coast and North East form compacts, companies, or nonprofits that provide healthcare, retirement and funding for their schools. These coastal states run blowout deficits despite having high taxes on workers and businesses. The companies there might migrate if they could save money on taxes. >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. The states are already supposed to be largely sovereign. It is the Federal government asserting authority to tax and regulate everyone that fouls things up. Unfortunately we already have extensive social programs that people have been robbed to pay for, so walking it back would leave too many people everywhere feeling ripped off. There is NOTHING special about the coastal states that guarantees them supremacy in any area of production. They have lots of people and inertia. Whatever they can do, other states can do also (and probably already are). It's an elitist attitude of the residents of those states that makes them think they're better than the "flyover" states.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  Those states have a much larger GDP, allowing them to actually afford those things. The reality is California gives much, much more to the federal government than it takes. The same is not true for a lot of other states.
  - silisili 1y ago
    I think wording is important here. California doesn't give anything to the federal government. So, I'll try my best to correct it. Because of high salaries and population, the people of the state of California pay more in federal income taxes than the state receives as federal subsidies. Perhaps same end result, but the framing is important. California isn't some saint who donates money to the govt.
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      Of course they're not a saint, but they're not hurting for money because they're the 4th largest GDP. In the world.

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.
  - dmd 1y ago
    Great! You’ve just put the final piece in place for the civil war.
    - iamnothere 1y ago
      I disagree, and the status quo is taking us in that direction regardless.

wakawaka28 1y ago

>The West Coast and North East form compacts, companies, or nonprofits that provide healthcare, retirement and funding for their schools. These coastal states run blowout deficits despite having high taxes on workers and businesses. The companies there might migrate if they could save money on taxes. >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. The states are already supposed to be largely sovereign. It is the Federal government asserting authority to tax and regulate everyone that fouls things up. Unfortunately we already have extensive social programs that people have been robbed to pay for, so walking it back would leave too many people everywhere feeling ripped off. There is NOTHING special about the coastal states that guarantees them supremacy in any area of production. They have lots of people and inertia. Whatever they can do, other states can do also (and probably already are). It's an elitist attitude of the residents of those states that makes them think they're better than the "flyover" states.

array_key_first 1y ago
Those states have a much larger GDP, allowing them to actually afford those things. The reality is California gives much, much more to the federal government than it takes. The same is not true for a lot of other states.
- silisili 1y ago
  I think wording is important here. California doesn't give anything to the federal government. So, I'll try my best to correct it. Because of high salaries and population, the people of the state of California pay more in federal income taxes than the state receives as federal subsidies. Perhaps same end result, but the framing is important. California isn't some saint who donates money to the govt.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    Of course they're not a saint, but they're not hurting for money because they're the 4th largest GDP. In the world.