[narak]

I suspect the most practical way to reform our institutions is through increased competition in governance, just like we "fix" stagnant institutions in the private sector. We already have this baked into our constitution: States rights and their ability to pass amendments. There's a movement happening around this. [0]

Justice Brandeis said it best: "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." [1]

Imagine if States could try different healthcare systems, or basic income, etc. Citizens would be able to vote with their feet and move to the best systems. This should be a bipartisan movement.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendmen...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy

[apozem]

This is a nice thought that does not grapple with the reality of modern-day politics.

The Republican Party is hellbent on holding onto power by any means necessary. They will oppose any structural reforms that could reduce their power. Would they allow a system such as you propose, that allows California greater independence? Of course not.

Look how they oppose vote by mail [1], in the middle of a pandemic. Madness, until you realize they believe vote-by-mail will advantage Democrats. This is not a party that is interested in pro-democracy experiments, only changing the rules to keep themselves in power.

> There is no part of the Republican Party — not its president in the White House, not its leadership in Congress, not its conservative allies on the Supreme Court, not its interest groups or its affiliated media — that has an interest in or commitment to a fair, equal and expansive democracy...

> Republican lawmakers nationwide have taken every opportunity to restrict voting and entrench themselves against voters who might want an alternative. They’ve passed strict photo ID requirements, implemented mass voter purges, put new restrictions on registering voters, closed polling sites and ended extended voting periods. With few exceptions — Utah introduced vote by mail in 2013 — a state with a Republican executive and a Republican Legislature is a state that will restrict voting long before it tries to make it easier and more accessible. [2]

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/politics/republicans-v...

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/sunday/wisconsin-...

[Barrin92]

Localism is rarely the answer. The housing crisis is the primary example of this. The US has one endemic problem, which is local interests successfully lobbying federal government and putting the interests of the few ahead of the interests of society at large.

It's local homeowner associations, the tendency to litigate everything, the inability for large actors like government or business to purchase and develop land. The one person who symbolizes the reason why modern America can't build for me is Erin Brockovich. A person without any formal training in the legal field suing an entire project into the ground, although as it turns out there's actually no scientific evidence for any of the claims, yet she's celebrated as the little guy who stuck it to the man.

Devolving power to the states may only weaken the federal government whose resources and knowledge are needed to provide large scale infrastructure. The deficit here isn't in the billions, its in the trillions.

I'm not in principal opposed to experimenting with local democracy or whatever but it needs to happen on the back of a federal government with sufficient capacity and competence and power to act quickly.

For the "states as laboratories" thing to work you actually need a mechanism to ensure that the things that work actually get adopted. I don't see this happening in the US. There's way too many inmates running their own asylums.

[nickff]

Perhaps the interstate highway system is a federal issue, but a metro subway or bus system isn't. Seattle's mass transportation system has no impact on Miami's; I doubt either has an impact on Portland's.

What resources and knowledge does the federal government have that the states don't? If the federal government has such knowledge, it should probably publish the papers, so that state and municipal experts can determine how to apply it to their region.

If the federal government lowers taxes, the states can raise theirs, and accomplish whatever objectives they need to. It's a many-billion dollar state issue in many states, which looks like a trillion dollar federal issue when you add up all the states, but there doesn't seem to be any economy of scale which makes the federal government better suited to solving the issue than any given state.

[carapace]

> Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium in a cooling tower system to fight corrosion. The waste water was discharged to unlined ponds at the site, and some percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area near the plant approximately 2 by 1 mile (3.2 by 1.6 km).

~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

Are you trolling?

Erin Brockovich isn't the problem. Dumping waste is the problem.

That kind of "building" just isn't helpful.

[toasterlovin]

> Localism is rarely the answer. The housing crisis is the primary example of this.

I think you could argue that the housing crisis is caused in large part by the fact that states cannot limit immigration from other states. Which would suggest that, perhaps, localism would be a solution to the housing crisis.

[bhupy]

This is exactly how Switzerland operates, and it appears to be working rather well for them.

It also helps to think of the United States as more akin to the European Union, rather than any of its individual member states. This is purely conjecture, but an EU that is as centrally powerful as the US would likely be equally disastrous.

[freehunter]

And that’s part of the problem, a loose confederation of states with a weak central government morphed over the past 200 years into a president who has such unbelievable powers and a federal government who claims total authority over the states. It wasn’t meant to be like that.

[justin66]

> Imagine if States could try different healthcare systems, or basic income, etc. Citizens would be able to vote with their feet and move to the best systems. This should be a bipartisan movement.

Health care and basic income are... interesting... examples of what you're talking about. Government should certainly take better care of people at the bottom of the income ladder who need health care or money but if people who need that stuff "vote with their feet" and move to a few states that experiment with providing that stuff, the result might not be very positive for those states.

There's already an economic race to the bottom dynamic among states in a lot of ways. Delegating things the federal government should provide for everyone to the states is going to make that a lot worse.

[bhupy]

> There's already an economic race to the bottom dynamic among states in a lot of ways. Delegating things the federal government should provide for everyone to the states is going to make that a lot worse.

Switzerland seems to be doing just fine, though.

[Goronmon]

Citizens would be able to vote with their feet and move to the best systems.

This sounds great for the wealthy and those who don't have trivial issues like jobs or family tying them to one location. Sounds terrible for everyone else though.

[creddit]

It turns out jobs happen to exist in cities throughout the country. Almost all of them in fact. Families are also able to move as a unit if so desired. Otherwise, there's always travel back to them or the use of widely available free services for keeping in touch.

Moving is not particularly expensive and if in so doing, as under this proposed scenario of moving to places with better QoL or economies, could in fact be a net positive financially for the individual/family moving (ie an investment).

It should also be noted that this already happens today and not so much so be the wealthy for whom moving actually is much less important. Take a look at net migration stats throughout the country: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/geographic-mobi...

This idea that "only the wealthy" (how is this even defined??) have the autonomy to do anything is so played out in today's political discussions. It's a trope used without thought to the idea being proposed. No consideration given except that something might cost money and is therefore only doable by some abstract group of wealthy people.

[bhupy]

Perhaps a worthwhile goal for the Federal government would be to ensure a _positive right_ to be able to move freely within Member States.

A basic income is an underrated way of providing for this.

[gonehome]

This is already true in a way, lots of people that can flee the midwest states for better economic opportunity on the coasts.

[BurningFrog]

I agree, but I think that train has sailed.

We're now firmly one country run by a "single point of failure" federal government. Sure, it delegates out some minor things to the states, but there is no doubt who is in charge.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Citizens would be able to vote with their feet and move to the best systems

Completely ignoring the role of community, family and friends in the "pursuit of happiness".

Not to mention weather.

[fiter]

If we have more diversity in the kind of places where people can live, I suppose that we would have more people finding the place they want to live.

Other people replying to you in this thread seem to think people can live where they live right now and we can always resolve all the conflicting needs and desires. I think this hasn't been achieved because it cannot be. It is worth trying and why everyone should be involved in their community to keep it or change it to how they want, but I do think that there are points where you "give up" and move. I've done it before.