
Too Big to Fail: A Call for States’ Rights - noego
https://outlookzen.com/2016/11/17/too-big-to-fail-a-call-for-states-rights/
======
smacktoward
But we _tried_ that. Before there was the Constitution, the country was
governed under a different basic law, the Articles of Confederation
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation)),
which set up a much weaker central government and reserved nearly all power to
the states. It only took a decade or so under the Articles for the whole
system to begin to collapse.

The reason why there was a Constitutional Convention in 1787 was because by
then leaders in many states had come to the conclusion that the Articles were
so disastrously flawed they could not be saved by revision. The only way
forward was to throw them out altogether, and replace them with a new system
that gave the Federal government the ability to do things like levy taxes and
conduct foreign policy. And from that we got the Constitution we all know
today.

Fast forward 70 years or so, and the states’ rights idea comes back again,
this time in the South. They secede from the Union and set up a new government
that establishes states’ rights as a core principle. Secession leads to war,
and the new Confederate government finds it can’t effectively fight that war
because it lacks the power to establish a single national army or efficiently
tax its citizens. “If the Confederacy fails,” Confederate President Jefferson
Davis moaned, “there should be written on its tombstone: _Died of a theory._ ”

The reason why states’ rights is an abandoned concept in American political
thought isn’t because it’s never been tried. It’s because it _has_ been tried,
multiple times even, and has always led to disaster.

~~~
natecavanaugh
I don’t know if I’d say that the concept of states rights is abandoned, though
it does seem to be discussed less. But it shouldn’t be only central or only
federal, but rather a constant friction over where ones power begins and the
other ends. That friction we feel from it indicates that things are working.
You wouldn’t feel that friction if any one side has all of the power. You’d
hear grumbling, but there’d be no court cases about it, no decisions to be
made, because the side with all of the power does the deciding.

Both systems, fully centralized and fully decentralized both are flawed, which
is why we have the balance at all.

I think what’s happening is that the authoritarians in both sides of the
political debate are heard more often and more loudly than before, so they of
course want whatever will get them their goals. But the US is still the US, so
I’m not sure what this article is even attempting to say? Less federal power?
In certain areas, sure, but a EU of North America? That sounds terrible and
isolating. It also seems like it would only feed the tribalism that seems to
be everywhere.

I have to agree with your overall comment though. Travel, dispersed friends
and families, etc guarantee we wouldn’t handle being split like the EU, and
it’s crazy, IMHO, that the original author really sees so many differences
between states that they outweigh the similarity of vision.

------
hackeraccount
The logic of centralization is that if X is a good idea then how could it not
be a good idea for everyone? And further if _everyone_ is involved in X then
there's no free rider problem. Plus there are fewer resource constraints.

I'm much more of a federalist in these matters but I see why centralization
appeals to people. If there really is a correct universal solution then it
might be a good thing. I tend to think that that's not the case as often as
people think and that we actually are trying to that even less often then
that.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Well the idea that a single point can provide the correct response for every
part of a nation is a failure. The problem with this thought is that the US
federal government is made up of representatives from the states. States with
less people have dramatically more say than states with more people simply
because there was an arbitrary limit put in place for the number of
representatives. Our federal government therefore gives dramatically more
power to places that no one wants to live. The best solution is a hub and
spoke solution. This doesn't suffer from the local knowledge problem.

Perhaps it's time to divide the United States up into regions as well as
states. Similar to how the federal court system already does it. Then the
backwards southern states could fail on their own and eat themselves, in a way
that allows the sane parts of the country to continue getting along just fine.
Then we would put a giant border wall around those regions, especially Florida
and turn them into giant penal colonies. Can you imagine the threat of being
forced into Florida? Texas would become nothing more than giant flags and
slices of bread.

