4 ms·

One of the great powers of federalism is not having to duplicate efforts for every state. It also reduces cost by allowing 'one-size-fits-all' and economies of

One of the great powers of federalism is not having to duplicate efforts for every state. It also reduces cost by allowing 'one-size-fits-all' and economies of scale, rather than each state having its own bespoke whatever. Many countries around the world enjoy the benefits of coordinated public health departments. Part of the United States' poor response to COVID was because there was no central public health department that could work closely with state agencies to e.g. provide data about what's going on, share best clinical practices, etc. Each state is an island. So no, I don't agree that the only goal of the federal government should be piggy bank. States should have a lot of latitude with their policies, but generally standardizing things across the nation would be a net positive.

bombcar 11mo ago
Many countries around the world are the size of US States. The UK and Germany are only twice the size of California, for example. The problem in the US isn't that we can't do things, it's that nobody can agree on what to do. And to solve that problem, let states do their own thing as much as we can, and it'll become obvious where the good systems are. Or in other words, an argument needs to be made why the EU "works" with individual "states" doing their own thing, but the US cannot "work" unless it's considered as one large country.
- rwj 11mo ago
  This analogy is quite misleading, because, in addition to California, there is also Wyoming, with a population of less than <600k.
  - emchammer 11mo ago
    Scalia was right in saying that the checks and balances slowing things down is a feature, not a bug. The Framers were right about protections against faction. I’m not sure they understood how badly malicious schemers could deliberately manipulate the system. Things just aren’t getting done, and it is killing people.
    - psunavy03 11mo ago
      Half of the problem with American politics these days is people from blue and red states trying to force the entire country to become one giant blue state or one giant red state. It's too big for one-size-fits-all answers. Every state should be able to largely do its own thing as long as it isn't violating the Bill of Rights.
      - matthewdgreen 11mo ago
        If you look at some of the more controversial bills being passed in the states, they're also being more or less lifted out of national political action committees and think tanks. Extreme in-state gerrymandering (supported by national party organizations) has effectively nationalized big parts of state politics in those states.
        psunavy03 11mo ago
        I've spent the majority of my adult life in Washington State and I've witnessed this firsthand. This place used to have a unique vibe that was more purplish-blue "granola hippies with guns that just want to be left alone." Progressivism mixed with an Old West libertarian streak. There was a GOP minority, and the red east and blue west played off against each other and kept things reasonably center-left. Now it's a one-party state, and the legislature might as well be the state Parliament, taking its marching orders straight from the DNC. The Governor is just as all-in on drinking the blue Kool-aid, and the state Supreme Court seems like it only exists to validate what the other two branches decide. And looking at places like Texas and Florida, seems like the same is happening on the other side of the aisle. What's infuriating is there are conservatives in blue states and liberals in red states getting just steamrolled to the point of "why should I even vote or participate, when I'm just going to get told to sit down and shut up?" That's not healthy for democracy. The rights of the minority exist for a reason and you can't just vote things away because you have 50.01 percent of the vote.
        Taikonerd 11mo ago
  - goler 11mo ago
    Sure, but fighting the impulse to solve problems at the Federal level that could/should be solved at the State level doesn’t preclude individual states from building multi-state solutions together.
    - bombcar 11mo ago
      More of these exist than people realize - and are a great way to "latch on" to the success of another program.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > analogy is quite misleading, because, in addition to California, there is also Wyoming, with a population of less than <600k Wyoming has the population of Malta [1][2] but the GDP/capita of the United States and Norway [3][4]. It should be expected we'd have a different optimal solution from California. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming 588,000 in 2024 [2] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by... 545,000 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... $90,000 in 2024 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... $90,000 and $92,000, respectively
  - JBlue42 11mo ago
    It's the general knee-jerk reaction that's brought out whenever people try and have modern ideas for the US, like modern healthcare or high-speed rail. "B-but, it's so big!"
stronglikedan 11mo ago
> rather than each state having its own bespoke whatever that's states' rights and it's enshrined in the constitution > the only goal of the federal government should be piggy bank that is indeed the only goal that the founders had in mind, as it should be
Taikonerd 11mo ago
> there was no central public health department If only we had some sort of federal Center in charge of Disease Control... ;-) But I agree with you that the CDC was weirdly passive during COVID. You'd think it would have been their moment to shine.
- ambicapter 11mo ago
  From what I remember, there was a LOT of resistance to whatever the CDC said during Covid. Kind of a defining characteristic of that time period.
giantg2 11mo ago
"Many countries around the world enjoy the benefits of coordinated public health departments." Many countries around the world are the size of a single state and lack the geographic diversity of the US.
triceratops 11mo ago
You said > generally standardizing things across the nation would be a net positive. The person you replied to said > federal... should be restricted to providing...basic guidelines that have to be met You may be closer in opinion than you realize. Btw what the person you responded to described is how the Canadian healthcare system - which many liberal-type Americans on Reddit appear to admire - works. The federal government sets standards and provides some funding. The provinces implement it their own way.
- bombcar 11mo ago
  Exactly - the key is to have very high-level and outcome-driven guidelines and not trying to micromanage everything; that allows various methods to be tried, and the best ones will start to be emulated. (Another underlying reality is that the vast majority of people will say education and healthcare are "very important" but very few people will move to improve either of those - beyond going out of state for college.)
  - triceratops 11mo ago
    > very few people will move to improve [education] This is empirically false. People move to better school districts or enroll their children in private schools all the time. It doesn't require moving to a different state.
potato3732842 11mo ago
>One of the great powers of federalism is not having to duplicate efforts for every state. It also reduces cost by allowing 'one-size-fits-all' and economies of scale, rather than each state having its own bespoke whatever. One of the great failings caused by federalism and those who simp for it is that when a bad solution is arrived upon or a solution becomes outdated immeasurable suffering is caused and prolonged by not letting those states who want to try and improve do so. There were a dozen states who were on the precipice of having this solved before the feds stuck their dick in it. Remember Romneycare?
bryanlarsen 11mo ago
There's a massively underused middle ground -- instead of 1 or 50 different systems we could have a small N. One example would be emissions standards, where N is basically 2 -- the federal standard and the California standard, with some states choosing to use the California standard instead of the federal standard. This happens because that's their only 2 choices because of weird historical events, but imagine it happening by deliberate choice where the other states co-operate more with California in setting the more restrictive standard. States should be co-operating more often.
- Taikonerd 11mo ago
  I really like this idea. And it lets ideas grow more organically: instead of a promising pilot program in (say) Maryland which then tries to go national, there can be a club which grows gradually. Another state joins the club in 2026, then another two in 2027, then...

bombcar 11mo ago

Many countries around the world are the size of US States. The UK and Germany are only twice the size of California, for example. The problem in the US isn't that we can't do things, it's that nobody can agree on what to do. And to solve that problem, let states do their own thing as much as we can, and it'll become obvious where the good systems are. Or in other words, an argument needs to be made why the EU "works" with individual "states" doing their own thing, but the US cannot "work" unless it's considered as one large country.

rwj 11mo ago
This analogy is quite misleading, because, in addition to California, there is also Wyoming, with a population of less than <600k.
- emchammer 11mo ago
  Scalia was right in saying that the checks and balances slowing things down is a feature, not a bug. The Framers were right about protections against faction. I’m not sure they understood how badly malicious schemers could deliberately manipulate the system. Things just aren’t getting done, and it is killing people.
  - psunavy03 11mo ago
    Half of the problem with American politics these days is people from blue and red states trying to force the entire country to become one giant blue state or one giant red state. It's too big for one-size-fits-all answers. Every state should be able to largely do its own thing as long as it isn't violating the Bill of Rights.
    - matthewdgreen 11mo ago
      If you look at some of the more controversial bills being passed in the states, they're also being more or less lifted out of national political action committees and think tanks. Extreme in-state gerrymandering (supported by national party organizations) has effectively nationalized big parts of state politics in those states.
      - psunavy03 11mo ago
        I've spent the majority of my adult life in Washington State and I've witnessed this firsthand. This place used to have a unique vibe that was more purplish-blue "granola hippies with guns that just want to be left alone." Progressivism mixed with an Old West libertarian streak. There was a GOP minority, and the red east and blue west played off against each other and kept things reasonably center-left. Now it's a one-party state, and the legislature might as well be the state Parliament, taking its marching orders straight from the DNC. The Governor is just as all-in on drinking the blue Kool-aid, and the state Supreme Court seems like it only exists to validate what the other two branches decide. And looking at places like Texas and Florida, seems like the same is happening on the other side of the aisle. What's infuriating is there are conservatives in blue states and liberals in red states getting just steamrolled to the point of "why should I even vote or participate, when I'm just going to get told to sit down and shut up?" That's not healthy for democracy. The rights of the minority exist for a reason and you can't just vote things away because you have 50.01 percent of the vote.
        Taikonerd 11mo ago
- goler 11mo ago
  Sure, but fighting the impulse to solve problems at the Federal level that could/should be solved at the State level doesn’t preclude individual states from building multi-state solutions together.
  - bombcar 11mo ago
    More of these exist than people realize - and are a great way to "latch on" to the success of another program.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > analogy is quite misleading, because, in addition to California, there is also Wyoming, with a population of less than <600k Wyoming has the population of Malta [1][2] but the GDP/capita of the United States and Norway [3][4]. It should be expected we'd have a different optimal solution from California. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming 588,000 in 2024 [2] https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by... 545,000 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... $90,000 in 2024 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... $90,000 and $92,000, respectively
- JBlue42 11mo ago
  It's the general knee-jerk reaction that's brought out whenever people try and have modern ideas for the US, like modern healthcare or high-speed rail. "B-but, it's so big!"

stronglikedan 11mo ago

> rather than each state having its own bespoke whatever that's states' rights and it's enshrined in the constitution > the only goal of the federal government should be piggy bank that is indeed the only goal that the founders had in mind, as it should be

Taikonerd 11mo ago

> there was no central public health department If only we had some sort of federal Center in charge of Disease Control... ;-) But I agree with you that the CDC was weirdly passive during COVID. You'd think it would have been their moment to shine.

ambicapter 11mo ago
From what I remember, there was a LOT of resistance to whatever the CDC said during Covid. Kind of a defining characteristic of that time period.

giantg2 11mo ago

"Many countries around the world enjoy the benefits of coordinated public health departments." Many countries around the world are the size of a single state and lack the geographic diversity of the US.

triceratops 11mo ago

You said > generally standardizing things across the nation would be a net positive. The person you replied to said > federal... should be restricted to providing...basic guidelines that have to be met You may be closer in opinion than you realize. Btw what the person you responded to described is how the Canadian healthcare system - which many liberal-type Americans on Reddit appear to admire - works. The federal government sets standards and provides some funding. The provinces implement it their own way.

bombcar 11mo ago
Exactly - the key is to have very high-level and outcome-driven guidelines and not trying to micromanage everything; that allows various methods to be tried, and the best ones will start to be emulated. (Another underlying reality is that the vast majority of people will say education and healthcare are "very important" but very few people will move to improve either of those - beyond going out of state for college.)
- triceratops 11mo ago
  > very few people will move to improve [education] This is empirically false. People move to better school districts or enroll their children in private schools all the time. It doesn't require moving to a different state.

potato3732842 11mo ago

>One of the great powers of federalism is not having to duplicate efforts for every state. It also reduces cost by allowing 'one-size-fits-all' and economies of scale, rather than each state having its own bespoke whatever. One of the great failings caused by federalism and those who simp for it is that when a bad solution is arrived upon or a solution becomes outdated immeasurable suffering is caused and prolonged by not letting those states who want to try and improve do so. There were a dozen states who were on the precipice of having this solved before the feds stuck their dick in it. Remember Romneycare?

bryanlarsen 11mo ago

There's a massively underused middle ground -- instead of 1 or 50 different systems we could have a small N. One example would be emissions standards, where N is basically 2 -- the federal standard and the California standard, with some states choosing to use the California standard instead of the federal standard. This happens because that's their only 2 choices because of weird historical events, but imagine it happening by deliberate choice where the other states co-operate more with California in setting the more restrictive standard. States should be co-operating more often.

Taikonerd 11mo ago
I really like this idea. And it lets ideas grow more organically: instead of a promising pilot program in (say) Maryland which then tries to go national, there can be a club which grows gradually. Another state joins the club in 2026, then another two in 2027, then...