7 ms·

I suspect the most practical way to reform our institutions is through increased competition in governance, just like we "fix" stagnant institutions in the priv

by narak 6y ago

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

justin66 6y ago
> 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 6y ago
  > 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.
  - justin66 6y ago
    Is it? I honestly have no idea. Their system of government (and everything else) is radically different than ours in some pretty major respects that aren't going to change without us throwing out the constitution. Some of them are relevant to the post you replied to, for example how they handle taxation and citizenship.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Yes, in Switzerland nearly _everything_ is left to its states (Cantons). The Federal government is responsible for the army, currency, immigration/asylum, foreign relations, and customs. Everything else is the responsibility of the Cantons [1]. The net result is an "economic race to the bottom" that has now resulted in one of the lowest income taxes in the developed world, coupled with one of the highest standards of living. The Swiss government is largely influenced by 19th century American federalism. In fact, even naturalization is a Cantonal responsibility: "The State Secretariat for Migration examines whether applicants are integrated in the Swiss way of life, are familiar with Swiss customs and traditions, comply with the Swiss rule of law, and do not endanger Switzerland's internal or external security. The State Secretariat for Migration will then “green light” an applicant’s request to begin the naturalisation process but that does not mean citizenship is certain. Rather, cantons and municipalities have their own requirements that must be met."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Constitutions_and_powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Constit... [2] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376
      - wahern 6y ago
        Francis Fukuyama recently wrote an opinion piece where he argues that the dividing characteristic today between successful and broken states is trust in government, not the structure of government. Singapore is authoritarian-democratic, Switzerland hyper federalist, but both exhibit a political culture that voluntarily provides liberal permissions to the relevant government institutions. In the United States (nationally, and in most states) and many European countries, such a culture has long since eroded from its mid-20th century apex.
AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
That is the point of federalism. Unfortunately, we have forgotten the virtues of federalist governance in favor of increased centralization. This needs to be fixed.
Barrin92 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    >Seattle's mass transportation system has no impact on Miami's This is only true if you look at it in the absolute shallowest way. Seattle's increased output due to its subway system helps the entire country. 95% (to pull a number out of my rear end) of the use of interstates in a city are for private vehicles belonging to city residents. I-5 in Seattle doesn't "help" Miami either.
BurningFrog 6y ago
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 6y ago
> 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.
Goronmon 6y ago
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.
- bhupy 6y ago
  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.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    More like ensuring people have cheap housing when they get there. In the current system any UBI to help people move to a new place will be consumed by the increase in housing prices.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Take that thought one step further: an increase in housing prices will essentially keep the status quo in a given locality (unless more housing is constructed), so the people who couldn't afford housing before the UBI would not be able to afford it after the UBI. The only difference is that now they have money to be able to afford a U-Haul and/or plane tickets and/or any other funds necessary to uproot their life to a more economically friendly place.
      - Nasrudith 6y ago
        That is a small improvement and rational in some ways - go to where their money goes further - turning a race to the bottom im their favor for once. Unfortunately it would probably not be that great for growth long term and effectively create ghettos away from opportunities and such a concentration would be less able to support services when comprised of the lowest end. Better than homelessness certainly but....
bhupy 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Right, the systems of government of the United States are nearly identical to those of the European Union[1] (especially so prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment), and we constantly try to compare the Union to individual unitary states like Denmark or France or Singapore. Trying to shove an EU-shaped peg into a France-sized hole is probably not worth the effort. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lj127TKu4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lj127TKu4Q
fiter 6y ago
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.
apozem 6y ago
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-vote-by-mail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/politics/republicans-v... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/sunday/wisconsin-primary-2020-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/sunday/wisconsin-...

by narak 6y ago

justin66 6y ago

> 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 6y ago
> 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.
- justin66 6y ago
  Is it? I honestly have no idea. Their system of government (and everything else) is radically different than ours in some pretty major respects that aren't going to change without us throwing out the constitution. Some of them are relevant to the post you replied to, for example how they handle taxation and citizenship.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Yes, in Switzerland nearly _everything_ is left to its states (Cantons). The Federal government is responsible for the army, currency, immigration/asylum, foreign relations, and customs. Everything else is the responsibility of the Cantons [1]. The net result is an "economic race to the bottom" that has now resulted in one of the lowest income taxes in the developed world, coupled with one of the highest standards of living. The Swiss government is largely influenced by 19th century American federalism. In fact, even naturalization is a Cantonal responsibility: "The State Secretariat for Migration examines whether applicants are integrated in the Swiss way of life, are familiar with Swiss customs and traditions, comply with the Swiss rule of law, and do not endanger Switzerland's internal or external security. The State Secretariat for Migration will then “green light” an applicant’s request to begin the naturalisation process but that does not mean citizenship is certain. Rather, cantons and municipalities have their own requirements that must be met."[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Constitutions_and_powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Constit... [2] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376
    - wahern 6y ago
      Francis Fukuyama recently wrote an opinion piece where he argues that the dividing characteristic today between successful and broken states is trust in government, not the structure of government. Singapore is authoritarian-democratic, Switzerland hyper federalist, but both exhibit a political culture that voluntarily provides liberal permissions to the relevant government institutions. In the United States (nationally, and in most states) and many European countries, such a culture has long since eroded from its mid-20th century apex.

AlgorithmicTime 6y ago

That is the point of federalism. Unfortunately, we have forgotten the virtues of federalist governance in favor of increased centralization. This needs to be fixed.

Barrin92 6y ago

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 6y ago
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.
- xxpor 6y ago
  >Seattle's mass transportation system has no impact on Miami's This is only true if you look at it in the absolute shallowest way. Seattle's increased output due to its subway system helps the entire country. 95% (to pull a number out of my rear end) of the use of interstates in a city are for private vehicles belonging to city residents. I-5 in Seattle doesn't "help" Miami either.

BurningFrog 6y ago

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 6y ago

> 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.

Goronmon 6y ago

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.

bhupy 6y ago
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.
- xxpor 6y ago
  More like ensuring people have cheap housing when they get there. In the current system any UBI to help people move to a new place will be consumed by the increase in housing prices.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Take that thought one step further: an increase in housing prices will essentially keep the status quo in a given locality (unless more housing is constructed), so the people who couldn't afford housing before the UBI would not be able to afford it after the UBI. The only difference is that now they have money to be able to afford a U-Haul and/or plane tickets and/or any other funds necessary to uproot their life to a more economically friendly place.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      That is a small improvement and rational in some ways - go to where their money goes further - turning a race to the bottom im their favor for once. Unfortunately it would probably not be that great for growth long term and effectively create ghettos away from opportunities and such a concentration would be less able to support services when comprised of the lowest end. Better than homelessness certainly but....

bhupy 6y ago

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 6y ago
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.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Right, the systems of government of the United States are nearly identical to those of the European Union[1] (especially so prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment), and we constantly try to compare the Union to individual unitary states like Denmark or France or Singapore. Trying to shove an EU-shaped peg into a France-sized hole is probably not worth the effort. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lj127TKu4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lj127TKu4Q

fiter 6y ago

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.

apozem 6y ago

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-vote-by-mail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/us/politics/republicans-v... [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/sunday/wisconsin-primary-2020-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/opinion/sunday/wisconsin-...