Hacker News Reader

Comment by devmunchies | Hacker News Reader

Or, you know, decrease the size of the federal government and then give the states enough power to function much like their own countries.

why must we always focus towards a stronger federal government? The most functional countries seem to all have a small population (e.g. Norway, Sweden).

Whether you prefer socialism or capitalism, we can all see that neither work optimally with a mega-large population. Breaking up power would break up corruption and make it more manageable.

View on HN

With efforts to disenfranchise minority voters underway in many states [1][2], I'm not sure giving them more power is the best idea.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/0... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/opinion/voter-suppression...

The federal govt would still be able to keep the states in check. It would just delegate more responsibilities and liberties to the states. I'm not talking about disbanding the supreme court or anything.

yeah, it's hard to tell what people mean when they say "smaller government". In today's climate, that's come to mean the extreme "make it so small you can drown it in the tub" version of small.

I cannot express how fantastically hilarious I found that expression, I am absolutely going to be using that as shorthand for the position from here on out!

I often have the same worry when it comes to people asserting that state governments should be more able to function like smaller countries- I worry in particular that to some traditional enemies it would our individual parts "small enough to drown it in the tub."

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

Maybe that will be the result of the author's master plan of organizing insurrection through the power of software and the internet is successful. But he doesn't say what happens after the insurrection, so there's no real alternative offered other than chaos once the system breaks down. It's hard to predict what system will arise out of the ashes if he is successful.

It's kind of sad, really. It feels like I'm back in the '90s reading Usenet posts on alt.society.anarchy or alt.politics.usa.

I was wondering why people who advocate use of blockchain for voting. now it makes sense.

I don't see it as sad. The most important step in making the world a better place is using our imaginations. I think this is a core part of radical systems of thought. Anarchists would invite even you to imagine what would come next rather than a minority of them dictating a system that is prescribed.

I think it's also a problematic to percieve the system braking down as resulting in chaos. It's the desire of people for peace that preserves peace, not the system.

Also, saying the system isn't choatic now is misleading. The chaos is just both hidden and displaced.

> The most functional countries seem to all have a small population

The least functional ones also have a small population. See http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8863.pdf

yes, there are dysfunctional governments at every scale, but the functional ones seem to always be small.

Imagine dealing with all of the refugees, chased from one state to another, as every state tries to give itself an economic advantage by deciding who's a citizen and who isn't. The states are already doing this to the fullest extent that they can get away with.

That would devastate the huge swaths of rural America dependent on federal subsidies for income, medical care, fuel, etc. Are those people supposed to simply die? Become refugees in the coastal states that generate the bulk of the revenue?

Small government doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be a transfer of wealth between states. But on the other hand maybe it is better if people move to jobs. I notice you use the perjorative word "refugees", but they're really people moving for work so "economic migrant" might be less charged.

I don't think of refugee as a pejorative, at least not in this context. They wouldn't be economic migrants because they would be migrating to the wealthy states specifically to take advantage of the social programs those states are funding/would fund on a state level. A corn farmer whose income vanishes because his federal subsidies are taken away isn't going to migrate to San Francisco for a tech job, he'll migrate because he needs to see a doctor.

> Small government doesn't necessarily mean that there can't be a transfer of wealth between states.

I will remain skeptical until I see a state willing to give resources away to improve living conditions of other states.

That's what's happening now, isn't it? "Blue" states are paying in more so "red" states can pay in less?

I suspect it isn't only because of the relative poverty of "red" states. Rather, it's an unavoidable compromise among states with different political preferences. The reason that "red" states will agree to greater entitlement spending than their voters prefer is because they are bribed to do so. The reason "blue" states will agree to the bribery is because it helps them fulfill their voters' preferences.

If decentralization ends this cooperative arrangement, it won't be a disaster. "Red" states will have to reorganize their spending priorities. "Blue" states will have a little more money to spend on whatever. Life will go on, but just a bit differently in South Dakota than in Oregon.

> That's what's happening now, isn't it? "Blue" states are paying in more so "red" states can pay in less?

Do you think it'd happen without a federal government?

It's an interesting question. Keeping in mind the levels of "foreign" aid we maintain now, I would suspect... yes? Is there a transition that American politics makes from the state level to the federal level, that makes us more generous? Is there a reason for that transition, or is it simply magical?

Foreign aid is just a tool in the soft diplomacy spectrum. It's not usually given out of generosity, but to influence local politics, develop markets etc...

Is there any reason to believe that those factors would not apply?

One good reason of a stable relationship (as in states of a single country) is not needing to spend time and energy with diplomacy, freeing those resources for use abroad.

If the military-industrial complex could be coopted into building schools, roads, railroads and hospitals instead of weapons, soft diplomacy could change the face of the planet.

For a fraction of current prices.

In the case of California specifically, the difference between federal taxes paid and federal money received represents about 7% of the state budget. Foreign aid is about 1% of the federal budget, though. Why would California spend more? (Edit: Of course its budget might have to triple if it didn't get all that federal money, so there you go.)

Doesn't the EU do that all the time, to develop the less developed members? (Read: Mostly Poland)

http://msp.gov.pl/en/polish-economy/economic-news/4015,dok.h...

> The value of total European Union funds allocation for particular EU member states, according to the EU budget for 2014-2020, as agreed during the EU summit in Brussels on February 8, 2013

As difficult as it is to admit, I don't see them resolving their problems until they have no choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com