>Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse
Switzerland has four official languages. It's also right next to Germany, which has a history of racism that would scare a Mississippian. Canada, too, has plenty of diversity; 16.2% of people belong to a visible minority:
>The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
It's not a tautology. I was saying that his anti-federalism is de novo, i.e., without ulterior motives, which has been supported by every single thing he has ever said.
>He's a states rights guy because he's a Christian fundamentalist who wants the power to enforce his provincial values on others, and the federal government gets in the way of that.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this belief and I've provided substantial evidence against it in the above post.
The beginning of the "states right" movement in the 60s (1860s or 1960s, take your choice), was primarily motivated by race. Cletus was not an austrian economist.
I think the post you're replying to is going a little too far but there absolutely is a connection between states' rights and racial issues. That's why the stuff in the newsletter is resonating. Those who are in favor of states' rights on other issues (as I am to an extent) would be well-served to recognize this connection.
Any centrally controlled system will edge one way or another compared to decentralized units. If you take one example (a specific race issue) and generalize, then you'll conclude (as you seem to have done) that centralized control is superior.
The benefits of a large shift in power toward the states are too numerous to list, but to name a few:
- Look at the issues discussed in national political campaigns. They are unduly biased by the issues relevant to swing states, and candidate promises (and laws) end up exerting federal control over swing state issues simply to help candidates win Federal office.
- Voter empowerment. The washington establishment is so big and unwieldy that it takes lots of money to get one's voice heard. With increased power at the state and local level, individuals could more easily focus their activism efforts in ways that would create the biggest benefit.
- The biggest issue is experimentation. With 50 different "experiments" in democracy (state laws) there is hope of actually realizing that a law is bad. Our current system picks a single winning approach before any has been tried and then loyal partisans stick to it and ignore all evidence. How much better would it be to observe how 50 different entities solve similar problems. Like any optimization problem, this might at times be a less efficient approach, but it'd do far better at global optimization.
You're missing the point - I'm making a historical point.
I'm generally of the opinion that more states' rights is generally better as long as it doesn't create a game-theory zero-sum clusterfuck of misaligned incentives, like taxes for crossing state borders or something like that. Some things need a federal guarantee but many can/should be devolved to the states.
You are absolutely right. And that is what makes the constitution important, to be that "federal guarantee".
I'd like to comfort you that "taxes for crossing state borders" could never happen but I'm not sure I can justify that. I was hoping the Commerce Clause would say something there but I couldn't find anything. Maybe somebody else could find something on this bit of a hole in the libertarian philosophy?
Yeah, was. Past-tense. The federal government has a wonderful history too in this regard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
>Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse
Switzerland has four official languages. It's also right next to Germany, which has a history of racism that would scare a Mississippian. Canada, too, has plenty of diversity; 16.2% of people belong to a visible minority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_...
>The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
It's not a tautology. I was saying that his anti-federalism is de novo, i.e., without ulterior motives, which has been supported by every single thing he has ever said.
>He's a states rights guy because he's a Christian fundamentalist who wants the power to enforce his provincial values on others, and the federal government gets in the way of that.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this belief and I've provided substantial evidence against it in the above post.