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:
May '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
The King Prawn
Mendel
The "50 individual laboratories" may not be a good analogy if the losses from bad decisions are socialized among the other 49. · 8 minutes ago
But what if the successes are socialized? · 6 minutes ago
Aren't they by default? Texas is a booming economy, how much more federal tax revenue do our citizens contribute as a result of our limited tax/regulatory/tort environment. How many states can see Texas as an example of some things they may wish to emulate in their experiment?
Mar '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
The King Prawn
Mendel
The "50 individual laboratories" may not be a good analogy if the losses from bad decisions are socialized among the other 49. · 8 minutes ago
But what if the successes are socialized?
This is a similar question as "why cant't the government turn our entire healthcare system into the Mayo Clinic writ large?"
Two answers: 1) what works in some locales doesn't in others, and 2) our world is too dynamic, what is best-in-class today will be a drag on productivity in 5 years.
May '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
Mendel
BrentB67
Mendel
BrentB67
The King Prawn
I do not believe states are being charged interest representative of the risk creditors are accepting. My guess for states getting a break is that there is a perceived federal guarantee of state debt.
We have never seen a state default. I think most investors bet that the federal will backstop states.
This is what I suspected as well.
The "50 individual laboratories" may not be a good analogy if the losses from bad decisions are socialized among the other 49. · 20 minutes ago
I suspect we are going to find out in a few years just how strong our 'union' remains. It is hard to imagine Texas or Arizona helping pick up the tab for Illinois.
Mar '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
BrentB67
The King Prawn
BrentB67
I have yet to see allegations in a county or state that elections weren't being held or that the elections that took place were rigged.
The people of Bell have the government they elected and deserve.
Brent, I tend to agree with you that people receive the government they elect, but I do think you underestimate the serious difficulty of entrenched interests.
Even the founders recognized that incumbents can use their power in a way to force people to support them against their better instincts. I doubt most of the business owners of Bensonhurst enjoyed paying protection to the Mafia, but there was no other choice than to keep their power intact.
But if entrenched interests are inevitable, better they be established at local and not national levels.
Jul '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
BrentB67
Mendel
BrentB67
Mendel
BrentB67
The King Prawn
This is what I suspected as well.
The "50 individual laboratories" may not be a good analogy if the losses from bad decisions are socialized among the other 49. · 20 minutes ago
I suspect we are going to find out in a few years just how strong our 'union' remains. It is hard to imagine Texas or Arizona helping pick up the tab for Illinois. · 1 hour ago
I sure hope so! I live in Illinois, and what the democrats from Chicago have done to the state is darn near criminal.
Feb '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
The United State of America? Stateless and desperate.. a la francaise..
Jul '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
Why stop there? Remove all countries. While we are at it, create a Galactic Empire. Elect a Sith to power - so he can take over the republic...
Wait - wasn't there a movie like that?
@King - you need a break. You've now gone from small government to omnipotent government. What is the next step?
Aug '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
1.) States can default. 8 of them did so in the 1840s.
2.) There are 3,033 counties in the US (according to Wikipedia, Census of Governments has more than 3,060). And another 30,000 cities and towns. And a hundred thousand special districts. Surely there is a local government somewhere that is satisfactory for everyone.
3.) And if there isn't, the barriers to the creation of a new local government are trivial, provided you are willing to pay the required taxes.
4.) However, if we went to a fully unified system, there is no reason to believe this would remain true.
5.) And when the one-size-fits all is mandated, what competition there is keeping cities honest will be gone.
6.) The end result will not be Texas writ large, but Los Angeles.
Jun '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
The problem is with what such power does. In short order, we would NOT own it, it would own US. One can never trust government, and many of the evil things that state governments do are because in the current structure, states are just as big rent seekers from the Federal Government as any individual, or corporation. Restore a Federation where states are soverign as originally intended. I want a Federal government that can keep the US safe, (defense) control international trade, provide some level of support for basic science, ensure one state cannot take advanage of another state with respect to trade (but not affect the production of items traded) and almost nothing else. Government is best when it is closest to the people governed. First do things at the town or neighborhood level, then at the county level, if needed at the state level, and almost never at the Federal level. I want a Federal government that does nothing. I would happily pay congress to NOT pass laws. The advantage to this system is almost nothing gets done by government, and if my state or town does something I hate, then there are other options open.
Jun '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
One of my core tenets of society is that no matter what the size of the socio-politcal group, there are three types of people who are always there and have an out-sized effect on the group: The Megalomaniac (working whatever system to be a prime decision maker}, the Narcissist (working whatever system to primarily their own interest) and the Parasite.
In the case of Bell, CA, you had all three in one group of people. But they were found out. I will guarantee you that there are people right now at the Federal level many time more egregious in their corruption, but are buried behind many more walls of "anonomizing" bureaucracy.
Economically focused radio host Jason Lewis has a book Power Divided is Power Checked. Without any checks, I guarantee you that the three malignancies listed above will ruin any vision of efficiency or "good action" you may conceive, KP.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
That would be the ultimate system (looks surprisingly like the one we have on paper), but it lasted only until the convening of the first Congress. It's been all down hill from there with the ratchet effect being fully operative. Given the reality, what do we do? We'll go kicking and screaming into the abyss leaving claw marks in our wake, but into it we will surely go.
Nov '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
Having hoisted my jaw from the floor repeatedly, my initial inclination was not to respond to your post, because its ideas (and I use that term in its vaguest possible connotation) are probably beyond correction. However . . .
The quoted sentence, summarizing your conclusion, contradicts itself on several counts, for example: If "government is inherently dangerous and corrupt," then government "that can really do things" will do more things that are "dangerous and corrupt" and will do them more effectively. Recognizing the grave danger of a government that was both large and powerful and corrupt, the framers created a federal system with a central government of limited enumerated powers. (One could continue here with a discussion of how large government invites greater corruption.)
To avoid future embarrassment, please read the Constitution, and then with that document handy, please read The Federalist Papers, Democracy in America, and Spirit of Laws.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Please read the italicized note at the top of the post. This is thought exercise.
As to substance, we're going to have a behemoth, unitary, centralized government. The 14th Amendment and the law of entropy pretty much guarantee that outcome with the passage of time. We might as well be at the reins. Perhaps we'll be able to have some positive effect on the corruption that will be inherent in the system. It's basically the same idea as with nuclear weapons: their fine as long as only sane nations wield them.
Jun '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
The King Prawn
As to substance, we're going to have a behemoth, unitary, centralized government. The 14th Amendment and the law of entropy pretty much guarantee that outcome with the passage of time. We might as well be at the reins.
And therein lies the rub: who are "we" and how do you ensure that "we" will be at the reins?
Right now "we" are not at the reins, Obama is. He may well win a 2nd term. And now you want to give him even more power?
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Joseph Stanko
The King Prawn
As to substance, we're going to have a behemoth, unitary, centralized government. The 14th Amendment and the law of entropy pretty much guarantee that outcome with the passage of time. We might as well be at the reins.
And therein lies the rub: who are "we" and how do you ensure that "we" will be at the reins?
Right now "we" are not at the reins, Obama is. He may well win a 2nd term. And now you want to give him even more power? · in 0 minutes
No want, just considering the way forward on the current trajectory. Even if Romney wins the basic course probably won't be changed.
Jun '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
The King Prawn
And some of those areas are in dire straights. Consider how much better California would be doing if power was wrested from its legislature.
And given to whom: Obama?
Conservatives keep telling me my home state is "bankrupt" and "insolvent." Well here are some sobering stats:
California's state debt including unfunded pension liabilities is estimated at $617 billion. That's billion, with a b. My share: $16,400.
The federal debt, as everyone besides Obama knows, stands at $16 trillion. That's trillion, with a t. Your share and mine: $51,000.
And that does not even begin to account for unfunded future entitlements, that's just the official debt on paper.
Sure, the Democrats running Sacramento are crazy leftwing nutjobs, but they are stingy tightwads compared to the drunken sailors in Washington.
Nov '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
The King Prawn
Please read the italicized note at the top of the post. This is thought exercise. . .
No, it's a thougthless exercise . . .
the time for which would be better spent with the texts I mentioned.
And after reading those texts with attention and respect, one would need not indulge in such a thoughtless exercise. (Which leaves the question, "Why do you, Oh Astonishing One, indulge it?" Answer: "Boundless generosity combined with and hidden beneath a pervasive generalized crabbiness.")
Edited on September 22, 2012 at 3:42amMay '12
Re: Eliminate the States...
Astonishing
The King Prawn
Please read the italicized note at the top of the post. This is thought exercise. . .
No, it's a thougthlessexercise . . .
the time for which would be better spent with the texts I mentioned.
And after reading those texts with attention and respect, one would need not indulge in such a thoughtless exercise. (Which leaves the question, "Why do you, Oh Astonishing One, indulge it?" Answer: "Boundless generosity combined with and hidden beneath a pervasive generalized crabbiness.") · 6 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
Or it could be an exercise among intellectuals and friends on a Friday afternoon following a week of martyring a convicted criminal over the 1st Amendment, endless hand wringing over a marginal campaign being run on behalf of a very good man for president, and the usual stream of chatter about how the current White House occupant is a socialist.
We will be sure to send all future posts to your inbox for your eminent consideration of what merits 'thought'.
Dec '10
Re: Eliminate the States...
Or, you could exercise and strengthen your arguments instead of telling me to reread things.
Mar '11
Re: Eliminate the States...
Astonishing
To avoid future embarrassment, please read the Constitution, and then with that document handy, please read The Federalist Papers, Democracy in America, and Spirit of Laws.
If there is anyone on this site who has read these documents, it is King Prawn (he cites them pretty often).
And if there is anyone on this site who is a ceaseless advocate of the 10th Amendment, it is King Prawn.
Sometimes the best way to strengthen your own argument is to attempt to make a serious case for the opposing one. This post was a welcome respite from the usual "I hate Obama" "No, I really hate Obama" threads.
P.S. I do hate Obama though.