For the pandemic, people traveling into, out of, or through the state will spread it to surrounding states (Florida is one great example of how a state not responding appropriately has broader impacts on the nation).
For wildfires, fire knows no state boundaries, and smoke is even more promiscuous in its spread.
The governmental agency can also shift resources from one state to another without having to wait for the resolution of aid politics between the individual states (not to mention the states the aid would be transported through).
Of course, there are significant inefficiencies that exist in those entities in reality, but what would realistically prevent those same inefficiencies from existing in a state-run system as well?
For instance, when Alabama enacts their anti-abortion law, they could have a legitamite grievence that their residents can hop in a car and spend a weekend taking a road trip up to New York (assuming every closer state passes a simmilar law) and get their abortion there.
Or, when New Jersey passes their anti-gun law, they can get pissed that their citizens can go to Texas to buy guns and take them back to New Jersey.
We (arguably) fought a civil war over this issue. States had different laws with regards to slavery. The southern states were upset that their laws on slavery were being undermined by the ability of slaves to travel to northern states which would than grant their freedom. A compromise was struck were federal law (the fugitive slave act) would require northern states to honor the slave laws of southern states and return slaves. Some northern states asserted their states rights to not follow this law; thereby continuing to allow slaves freedom once they crossed the border. We may have had a civil war regardless; but if the northern states weren't able to directly undermine the slavery laws of the southern states, it may not have reached that point.
[0] Although, even with modern transportation technology, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) takes a very broad view of what constitutes interstate commerce.
1. The Peter Principle seems to be in action in government-- the guys who are too insane, too openly crooked, to incompetent to get into the federal government, seem to be welcomed into our state houses.
2. It encourages arbitrage and race-to-the-bottom on regulatory and economic issues. I'm sure we have states bidding against each other to attract economic boons, even with their limited current tools. If you denationalized OSHA or minimum-wage standards, the future is obvious.
Yeesh.
I want to see universal healthcare, but I think if state's taxes were higher than federal, and they were required to come up with a plan that covers everyone, however they want to do that, that it would make more sense for everybody.
It's not really a speculation, more of a fact, that if some higher power doesn't make them be what many see as humane/practice equality, then... they just wouldn't. If they don't, other states might have major issue with them... which isn't good for the prosperity of the nation.
All that a higher power will enforce is uniformity, which could just as easily be (or later become) uniformly bad for you as uniformly good for you. Without the enforcement of uniformity, you might still have the option of choosing for yourself by moving elsewhere instead of having the choice imposed on you wherever you go.
In your vision... which I'm not arguing for or against - I can't fathom a reason in which we don't just break up into countries.
As it stands, the states with the highest levels of education and economic output in the U.S. truly do tend to prop up the states with the lowest levels of education and output. However, the states being propped up also seem to actively disagree and attempt to impose their own preferences onto the very states that prop them up. There's no logical reason to not just be your own country at that point. Maybe even then going on to steamroll over the arguably weaker countries for their natural resources, as humanity has throughout most of history.
I don't care about favoring my idea of good or bad. The education mandated by nearly all states and the fed government has been teaching all students about equality and a standard level of defined human decency that should be seen to ensure a prosperous nation. The imposed curriculum showed us other variants of government that didn't include these basics leading to failed states/failed other forms of government throughout the centuries. However, even though this is what was mandated to be taught to us, we're growing up and being thrown into a system in which we see what we were forcibly taught in the mandated gov education system... simply isn't applied in some places. Whether or not this is "good" or "bad" - they forcibly taught us this... so it think there's a general consensus of surprised pikachu face to be had as to why things are different.
I personally think we're to far accelerated towards great filtering ourselves either way, to be honest. Very pessimistic view point, I know.
Aside from that - the majority of the U.S. population cannot just decide to move elsewhere. Therein lies the issue. If we grow up being taught that we're a United nation, though for some reason something is legal/enforced in one place and not in the other despite being under the same "Unity" - and we don't even have the choice to go to the place we would personally prefer... Where is the incentive to care much about anything? Any when there's no incentive to care much about anything... how well does the prosperity of the nation fare?
The point of it was to defend the independence of small groups against the large. When local opinions changed about the "right" way to live, which history shows happens again and again, this system allowed the local group to change how they lived without requiring the "permission" of other states (internal to the union or external). If your own group (or you) changed, and you no longer liked your local state as much as some other where they made "better" choices, you would have the option to vote with your feet, as hundreds of millions have over the centuries. This system also attracted vast numbers of people from other places who chose not the "country" but the specific state that most suited them.
At the time it may have seemed like a good idea to battle corruption, however I don't think they chose the correct solution.
As far as legal, historical, and constitutional reasons go, the original idea of the US was sovereign states under a limited federal government. The federal government inherently had no power except that explicitly granted to it by the constitution. Several part of the constitution (most notably the commerce clause) have been stretched far beyond their original meaning and purpose to make the federal government far more powerful than the states.
As far as moral reasons go, I've personally always been of the opinion that government should be as close to the people as possible. National governments (and international ones like the UN and EU) make it almost impossible to truly hold elected officials accountable.
That's history, but not reasoning. The constitution adapts to the people's needs, I don't believe we've gone down the "wrong" path, but either way the constitution is neutral towards the debate.
To be sure, it's silly to oppose the electoral college due to personal political leanings. But arguably, the president wouldn't wield so much power were she more representatively elected.
I guess my objection is just that there's a clear feedback loop in power structures, and better representation is one of many avenues available to slow that.
Firstly, US presidential election results are largely determined by turnout and switching from an electoral college to a single, winner-take-all bloc wouldn't change that underlying reality.
Secondly, even if you accept that "most votes wins" produces representative election results, it turns out that there are all kinds of wacky situations that can emerge in seemingly simple voting systems based on that idea.
Finally, there's a very strong argument to be made that "most votes wins" results in significant minorites being perenially underrepresented, increasingly ignored, and then ultimately disenfranchised.
Please respond to actual comments rather than your vivid imagination.
I mean, seriously, try to find evidence of your response in my comment. Please, try your best. This is why there is no more "good faith."
What is your point exactly?
There's a sad irony in the fact that in reminding me to assume good faith you actually did the opposite - assumed I was attacking you rather than having just made a mistake. And now you're rudely suggesting that I lack elementary reading comprehension. Maybe in my current state, sure. Not generally.
Calm down and be kind. Golden rule and all that.