These seem like arguments to eliminate the federal government entirely. If the citizens don't want it and don't care about people in other states, then we aren't really a union. Meanwhile, the voter in Alaska has a huge portion of their infrastructure funded by tax payers in other states.
> Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage
It is done that way today because no state collects enough gas tax to actually fund their own roads and bridges. All money comes with strings attached, it's one of the characteristics of money.
Yeah and those states created a federal government.
We’re talking about interstate transportation here. If you envision even the absolutely shortest list of things for a federal government to be involved in that’s going to be on it.
Some states are better run, and people (and companies) will move to those states, that's the point. With the federal government there are no alternatives, there is no choice.
This kind of argument seems to ignore the idea of federalism and limits on federal power. Just because something might be a good idea for one state doesn't mean that it's a good idea (or constitutional) at a federal level.
Presumably because they'd want something that another union state provides, and/or benefits that comes with being a larger country rather than an small independent one.
A union can't really be "equal" between all states unless all states contribute and benefit equally, and you can't really expect millions of people who live in a prosperous and populous state to be willing to discount their own voices so that the voices of those who may contribute less count far more than theirs. I'm not sure a perfect system exists -- it's all a series of tradeoffs, and a popular vote system would have its own -- but saying that the 700k people living in Alaska should have the exact same influence as the 40 million people living in California doesn't make things any better.
Ultimately, a country is made up of people, not political entities.
Is this also an argument for states to pull out of the USA? Because I doubt your average voter understands much about the US or state government or federalism.
good no wall, no incoming traffic,
if we can't protect our people we shouldnt have a federal government and the states should have local responsibility.
as opposed to paying billions for oil wars while our door is left wide open whilst states flout our federal policy.
Good point. I would support that. The US government was designed to be a federation of state governments, but power hunger interests have twisted the definition of "federal" government so as to consolidate power. :\
That would be great if we had real federalism. The states cannot try anything really unique, because they are hamstrung by federal law and federal subsidies with strings attached.
A federation would be fine if it was a proper one. One where cities have an equal position against their state inasmuch as they represent their residents and those residents have more say over the state government as a result. Today, we have a dated system which refuses to update its political infrastructure where it's needed. Now, more than ever, there's a need to make more direct levers of power to the citizens of a given location and less power to the technocrats and bureaucrats which 'represent' them.
Not only is that a naive statement, it is simply not true.
First, states are too dependent on interstate commerce and trade to operate as micro-countries. We need the federal regulations for several reasons:
- How do you tax a pipeline than runs from
Louisiana to Texas?
- Or a power grid that spans an entire region of states?
- Or how do you provide social services to people who live
in New Jersey but whose work is taxed in Manhattan?
Your city analogy exposes the defects of this argument. As noted, federation does not prevent centralization. And there is no reason to fight against centralization. It's ok for NYC to contain 1/2 the population of the state. What your argument seems to gloss over is that in _only_ contains 1/2. Nobody is forced to live there. They can go upstate, or to any other part of the state. People who want to can live in NYC and still be part of the entire state, enjoying all the benefits. People can live in the state capital, or Buffalo, or the best part of New York: Stamford.
Ok, even if that wasn't funny, it illustrates that the biggest centers of federated systems interact perfectly with smaller centers. You don't have to be part of New York to be part of the federation. And if the NYC hub walls itself off and demands tolls to interact? So be it. Let the market bear what it will.
Curious. Is there anything stopping individual states from doing this? Surely a federal system should enable individual states to act independently to some extent. They must have their own budgets and are to determine how resources are allocated. No?
I'm a big fan of the idea of abolishing states, having a US national government and then county/city level governments. The states were created when it was infeasible to manage large amounts of territory due to the difficulty of communicating across long distances. That's no longer the case. We could cede some state powers to local governments and some to the federal level.
The idea would get pushback from those in smaller states who enjoy a disproportionate voice in national politics, but I feel that those voices don't deserve to be amplified over anyone else's just because they have a bunch of empty land backing them.
Disagree. Statehood is an inherent subsidy, what with how interstate commerce is protected and the international peace maintained. Many Federal expenditures are not motivated by per-capita considerations, but rather foreign-strategic considerations. Federal tax income vs Federal spending is not the right way to value a state's membership in the Union, the costs of secession are.
Is the United States as a whole greater than the sum of its parts?
That would be robust decentralization, yes. They would coordinate with one another and a downsized federal agency to fund shared projects. By retaining control of their own budget and authority, states would become resistant to federal whims.
Take the recent spat about the federal government not helping California pay for the fires. Ideally federal taxes would be slightly lower, California taxes would be slightly higher, and there would be no need to rely on federal money. So much federal control has been created by taking extra money from the states and then distributing it back to us with strings attached.
The same is true for nations. Any argument for forcing the states to be subordinate to the federal government is also an argument for forcing the federal government, and all other national governments, to be subordinate to a single supra-national entity.
chisleu I've contemplated this as well. I don't really believe in big political unions. However there are major practical problems dissolving a union which needs to be addressed, which people who favor dissolving a union seldom address.
It is very hard to have open borders between states if there is no federal authority. It is also hard for a state to run their own economic policy without their own currency and central bank.
Already American states struggle with running different welfare policies. You see how red states e.g. a freeloading on blue state welfare programs, by dumping their poor people in blue states and enticing companies created in innovative states like Calefornia by luring them with low taxes.
I personally think it would be nice if we could have a wide selection of countries and states following completely different policies. It is good with experimentation and trying new things. In practice however this is difficult, as somebody can just freeload on everybody elses work by creating a tax paradise.
Nope, I think we should get rid of the states and turn them into administrative districts of the federal government. The state governments are hotbeds of corruption, ruled by minority interests because state elections have low voter turnout, and add an enormous administrative tax to pretty much every economic or legal transaction that happens in the U.S.
> Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage
It is done that way today because no state collects enough gas tax to actually fund their own roads and bridges. All money comes with strings attached, it's one of the characteristics of money.
reply