Eliminate the States...
Note: I'm just thinking this through and presenting plausable arguments, even if I'm not completely moved by them. Let's have the discussion to see what works and what doesn't.
Some of us really like the Tenth Amendment. We think the bloated, intrusive, bureaucratically-crippled federal government needs to be put back in its box, the box compacted, and then sealed in lead. I'm usually one of them, but I'm reevaluating my stance for now.
Here's my basic hypothesis: If we must have government, then we should have an energetic one. At least the federal government can do things. Granted, it's a loaded gun with a hair trigger, so it's very dangerous, but there is no way to uncock it. If we have such a dangerous thing lying around, then we (the right) should accept its reality and do everything we can to be in control of it. Allowing the left to get their hands on it guarantees it will go off and that it will do a lot of damage. If it can't be eliminated, the best we can hope for is some control over it.
Secondarily, why bother with pushing power back down? Local government is no less dangerous than federal, and there are simply more of them. Corruption is just as plentiful at the state and local level as it is at the federal level. I think the City of Bell, California, and quite a few of the states prove this point. We've all seen it at the local level if we've paid attention. Anyone who has ever tried to get a city or county permit to do anything with his own property understands this.
So, if government is inherently dangerous and corrupt, why not just have one that can really do things, but have us as the ones controlling it? The only other option is some form of codified libertarianism, but human nature thwarts any attempt to put such a system in place. As soon as we turn people loose they turn on each other, and the need for some form of efficacious government arises. Is it possible that only one government could be the path to the smallest and most effective form of government overall?
- Comment (67)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Aug '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
You are kidding, right? First of all, the farther removed the governing body is from the people, the harder it is to control. I personally really do have some control over what my state government does.
You are really advocating a 'benevolent dictatorship'.
Edited on September 22, 2012 at 2:39amAug '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Hasn't that been tried already? In the USSR? :)
Aug '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
KP - I might could go along with this idea, so long as the only state was Texas.
Jul '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
There is a country that runs itself along the lines you are advocating: France.
Oct '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Surely energetic government is the last thing we need. Of the left or right. Isn't one of the points of subsidiarity that it enhances accountability? A government made up of people you can shun at the local church is better than one made up of distant and pampered Beltway bandits. Another point is that smaller groupings can be more cohesive in values - so if Springfiled wants to outlaw skimpy bathing suits and Shelbyville wants to outlaw bathing suits altogether, these preferences can be accommodated while outraging the minimum number of folks - a nationwide policy would maximize the outrage.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Texas writ large is pretty much what I was thinking. If we're not going back to a federal republic, what is the best deal we can make out of what we have?
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
But we've utterly failed to maintain a seperation of local mores and values. We're slowly but surely moving to a one size fits all government. Why not own it when we get there?
May '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
King Prawn - I thought the 3 martini lunch went away decades ago.
Mar '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
Stop ripping on KP, he's obviously just playing devil's advocate for the sake on conversation (and kudos for that).
One under-recognized cause of the diminution of state power over the centuries has been our own organic development and the freedom it offers. For instance, our mobility is now such that most citizens live in at least several states during their lifetimes, and many cross state borders every day to go to work. Commerce has also ceased to recognize states as anything more than tax jurisdictions.
I would obviously also never advocate for dissolving states, but perhaps a redifinition of power distributions is in order. If states are nothing more than tax and regulatory jurisdictions, the result will be a type of arbitrage which only punishes those without mobility.
Jul '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Well one problem (though not an insurmountable one, see: czars & nonsense court rulings) is that the U.S. Constitution is much more deleterious to energetic governance than most states' constitutions, which are consistently much easier to amend.
I'm more inclined to have state constitutions that are more limiting, not a national one that is less so.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
It's a thought experiment. Someone counter the reality that local government is corrupt and ineffective. The states don't really do anything of value that couldn't be done by them as appendages of the federal government, and there would be only one taxing authority.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Completely unnecessary. See NFIB v Sebelius.
Jul '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
The reality is there are huge differences in how localities and states govern themselves. These do serve as, I forget who said this, laboratories of democracy. Compare Nevada and California or Virginia with Maryland. Within a metro area there can be huge differences in governance, for example Pasadena, Burbank and Glendale which are independent cities in the LA area free from the horrible LA Unified Schools and City of LA.
Edited on September 21, 2012 at 8:38pmJul '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
I do take your point KP but that was a pretty cumbersome process, no?
Mar '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
Look at California. 40 years ago, people flocked to the state, and those immigrants set up policies that let them live like kings while lighting a time bomb for future generations.
Now that bill is coming due, and many of those who advocated for low taxes and high spending (or their descendants) are leaving. The poor and the farmers who have been here for a century cannot leave, and they are left to suffer under somebody else's mistake.
As long as the mobile class can vote themselves benefits and leave when things go south, the state project is doomed to fail. Everyone likes to point to Texas, but Texas' great policies won't help much when its taxpayers have to foot the bill for other states' profligacy.
Feb '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
A little off topic, but kinda relavent:
3, 2, 1 should be the ratio of of a citizens fiscal duty to its governmet. I believe that citizens fund their government, and that in order for you to be a citizen, you should contribute. 1 is your federal obligation. 2 is you state obligation and 3 is your local (county, city and neighborhood) obligation. if the Federal take is 3%, state is 6%, and bourough is 9%. (5%, 10%,15%, etc.)
I'm not advocating a particular rate or tax scheme, only a ratio of obligation, a structure of commitment. With more relative "skin in the game" at the local level, involvment would necessarily be robust at the local level, and decreasing the farther out your loyalties (and royalties) go. Is this a notion worth pursuing and advocating for?
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
And some of those areas are in dire straights. Consider how much better California would be doing if power was wrested from its legislature.
May '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
The King Prawn
It's a thought experiment. Someone counter the reality that local government is corrupt and ineffective. The states don't really do anything of value that couldn't be done by them as appendages of the federal government, and there would be only one taxing authority. · 6 minutes ago
Any time men are entrusted with power, be it law enforcement, taxation, etc., over their neighbors the door is open for abuse irrespective of the level at which it happens.
The closer that power remains to a smaller group i.e. state/local vs. federal the more accountability there will be, especially in fiscal matters.
Residents of states have the liberty of mobility and that restricts a states' ability to tax. Thus it makes it more difficult for states to incur debt because their residents may flee excessive taxation. A state could still incur debt, but will be restricted in amounts and by higher interest rates.
Any program at the federal level can easily be funded via debt because of the federal's taxation w/out threat of mobility.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Concerning the states Patrick Henry said:
We've even taken from the states those things Henry saw as trivial. Why not go all the way? Half measures avail us nothing.
Jul '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Mendel: Look at California. 40 years ago, people flocked to the state, and those immigrants set up policies that let them live like kings while lighting a time bomb for future generations.
Now that bill is coming due, and many of those who advocated for low taxes and high spending (or their descendants) are leaving. The poor and the farmers who have been here for a century cannot leave, and they are left to suffer under somebody else's mistake.
As long as the mobile class can vote themselves benefits and leave when things go south, the state project is doomed to fail. Everyone likes to point to Texas, but Texas' great policies won't help much when its taxpayers have to foot the bill for other states' profligacy.
Is the national project doomed to failure for the same reasons?
Culture matters, and this is true at the state level. The "mobile class" is not leaving CA, a small portion of it is.