4 ms·

Or, you know, 50 semi-sovereign entities, like it was originally intended to be, before the civil war. I think anything that gives more power to the states, a

by pdx 12y ago

Or, you know, 50 semi-sovereign entities, like it was originally intended to be, before the civil war. I think anything that gives more power to the states, and unburdens the federal government from that responsibility would generally be a win-win for everybody.

Zigurd 12y ago
The problem with that is that it leaves the military industrial complex intact. That's what needs breaking up.
lukifer 12y ago
It's a shame that "states' rights" has largely been associated with slavery (or these days, other hot-button issues like abortion). I think America has benefitted greatly from per-state experimentation of policy and governance, and it's high time the pendulum swung back their way, even if the federal government still has an important role to play. In addition to the benefit of 50 petri dishes to gather data on what works and what doesn't, there's a human rights component, in that it's more feasible to move to a new state than a new country if policies are disagreeable. While not a perfect solution (especially for the poor), it does move further along the spectrum towards an active social contract, where people literally vote with their feet, rather than a passive one, where you're stuck with the rules of wherever you happen to be born.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  And further down, for that matter. The closer the government is to the people, the more representative it will be. With, y'know, caveats...
  - lukifer 12y ago
    There is a downside to too much power in individual states: the "race to the bottom" where capital can make states compete for resources and jobs by allocating them to whoever makes the most concessions, whether it's tax breaks, labor laws, environmental protections, etc. (We live with this already on the world scale; our protections on labor are great, but have mostly resulted in exporting poor working conditions overseas rather than eliminating them.) That said, the more local the government is, the more effective and responsible it tends to be: each vote counts more, constituents resemble humans rather than numbers, and it's a more manageable scope to engage in the nitty-gritty of governance. Balancing this reality with the benefits of collective solidarity is what Charlie Stross would call a Wicked Problem [1]. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/wicked-1.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/wicked-1...
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      Those would be a few of the caveats, to be sure. Though not, themselves, entirely unqualified negatives.

by pdx 12y ago

Zigurd 12y ago

The problem with that is that it leaves the military industrial complex intact. That's what needs breaking up.

lukifer 12y ago

It's a shame that "states' rights" has largely been associated with slavery (or these days, other hot-button issues like abortion). I think America has benefitted greatly from per-state experimentation of policy and governance, and it's high time the pendulum swung back their way, even if the federal government still has an important role to play. In addition to the benefit of 50 petri dishes to gather data on what works and what doesn't, there's a human rights component, in that it's more feasible to move to a new state than a new country if policies are disagreeable. While not a perfect solution (especially for the poor), it does move further along the spectrum towards an active social contract, where people literally vote with their feet, rather than a passive one, where you're stuck with the rules of wherever you happen to be born.

dllthomas 12y ago
And further down, for that matter. The closer the government is to the people, the more representative it will be. With, y'know, caveats...
- lukifer 12y ago
  There is a downside to too much power in individual states: the "race to the bottom" where capital can make states compete for resources and jobs by allocating them to whoever makes the most concessions, whether it's tax breaks, labor laws, environmental protections, etc. (We live with this already on the world scale; our protections on labor are great, but have mostly resulted in exporting poor working conditions overseas rather than eliminating them.) That said, the more local the government is, the more effective and responsible it tends to be: each vote counts more, constituents resemble humans rather than numbers, and it's a more manageable scope to engage in the nitty-gritty of governance. Balancing this reality with the benefits of collective solidarity is what Charlie Stross would call a Wicked Problem [1]. [1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/wicked-1.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/wicked-1...
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    Those would be a few of the caveats, to be sure. Though not, themselves, entirely unqualified negatives.