That might had make sense 200 years ago when Fed government was small. Nowadays it is a slow death sentence to the country.
Why is the longevity of a nation more important than the values it stands for (as laid down in its constitution)? One could argue that it's better to have a great constitution that treats its citizens equally and fairly, even if the nation is short-lived and eventually disintegrates into smaller nations.
The interpersonal equivalent of this would be "It doesn't matter how great your relationship is if your marriage is dead". I'm not sure many would agree with keeping a marriage alive at any cost.
Relatedly, I'm not sure if the GP's Scalia speech actually gets the causality right. I think we could make a good case that the United State's dominance and longevity comes from two oceans, fertile cropland, and advanced technology, and form of governance is a mostly-irrelevant sideshow. You could plop a different government down in North America, and as long as it had adequate incentives for individual innovation, it'd still end up a superpower.
There's a reason even we don't tend to push a US-style system on fledgling democracies, when setting them up. It's got well-known, grave, fundamental, and avoidable flaws.
The system is broken in ways that prevent fixing that very brokenness. We know exactly what's wrong, but can't do anything about it. You'd have to get a whole bunch of people whose personal power is tied up with the status quo, to, all at the same time, vote to weaken that power and the power of the organizations that put them where they are. Or you'd have to get at least some of the states that benefit from the brokenness to agree to weaken themselves. Neither is likely to ever happen—short of some very risky and probably-bad-rather-than-good developments that are more likely to end in authoritarianism than an improved democracy.
The supermajority of the electorate in the smaller states might be willing to exchange future political influence for sufficient wealth or some other compensation.
The vast majority of things the government touches turn to shit, including things with wide bipartisan support. How does making government able to do more, faster, fix that?
Overtime I've really begun to see this as propoganda that Reagan invented based on little to no empirical data. I'm not convinced that the government is anymore dysfunctional than any large corporation. The belief that the everything the government touches turns to shit does far more harm than good; and furthermore gets in the federal government's way of actually solving problems. The federal government may have a problem with incentives (like any corporation), but it's hard for me to believe they are inept. It ends up being a self fulfilling prophecy - the government tries to do something, a hundred road blocks are put up for fear of ineptitude, then when the government is slow due to said roadblocks, they are called inept. When those roadblocks are removed - for example in the vaccine distribution of 2020, it's clear that the government is capable of good outcomes. Millions of highly controlled and sensitive vaccines were deployed across the country in only a couple months under an administration that nearly became hostile to its deployment.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Robust systems are made up of interacting parts that tolerate partial failures. The reason the U.S. economy as a whole remains strong is because its least efficient businesses are continually failing, and their resources get reabsorbed by more competitive parts. When this ceases to happen (eg. the "too big to fail" banks in 2008, "what's good for GM is good for the country" in 1953), the economy as a whole becomes much weaker. There is no similar ablation process for the U.S. government - lately, there hasn't been an easy way to let parts of it fail while still preserving the government as a whole. This will likely lead to the collapse of the whole government, which is unfortunate. It can't avoid the dynamic common to all systems: the way to avoid total failure is to tolerate and adapt to partial failure.
All of this is to say is that even though large corporations and large governments are alike, the most efficient solution for a corporation (bankruptcy) is not a good solution for government and so despite the inefficiencies we are sort of forced to accept them as the engineering realities of the situation. I fully understand large governments have large government problems, I just don't agree with the notion that having a smaller government is a solution and that the small government meme has largely been toxic to the detriment of the middle class.
In theory democratic government is the check on this - if the government wastes too much money, the electorate is supposed to vote out their representatives and elect new ones that will cut the budget. (In this sense, Reagan-style conservatism is working as intended). In practice, this rarely happens, largely because the average voter is terrible about judging opportunity cost, and every expenditure seems worthwhile in a vacuum.
This is a bit like saying that the goal of government is GDP per capita. Yes, both are important, and both are indicators of doing a good job at something, but what a business does is the most important thing: how does it adapt to reality and make sure it is always doing something useful enough to pay for?
Government doesn't necessarily do things people want to pay for, as then it might do much less stuff, but people do want to feel as though they're getting value for money from their taxes, and that the government isn't spending so much that taxes go up vastly and their currency is inflated so much their careful savings are wiped out.