I think the biggest obstacle to this kind of system is not even getting there, it’s staying there. Even if we did return the majority of power to the states, the inevitable trend is still toward centralized government. What would we do? Maybe pass a Constitutional ammendment saying, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, and this time we mean it, dammit.”
Precisely, and add, “By the way, you’re going to start paying the real costs of getting phone lines, electricity, running water, and mail to Outer Boondockia.”
The point is this: Democrats and Republicans want to take this country in two vastly different directions. I as a democrat, believe that the democratic direction is better, but if those people in the red states are so willing turn back the clock 30 years, then I’ll let them if they are so motivated politically. But I don’t want to let them do it everywhere.
We’ll see how outer boondockia fairs when they are driving on the new Jim Thune Interstate highway in South Dakota that is paved in gravel. The only reason these states have the luxury to vote on “moral values” is because the blue states support them through pork anyways. Why should the blue states fight for social welfare for all, if they are just going to get the middle finger in return? Let them have their guns, gays, and God, and see how much prayer helps them when their poverty goes up fivefold. I live in Mississippi, and I know for a fact that if the Republicans had their way here, the population would be marginalized. The point is to flush this thinking from our nation as quickly and painlessly as possible because it is stupid.
If I’m wrong? Well, then blue staters keep their own money so it isn’t used to build judge Roy Moore’s next monument. Or to build factories in the South who then consider the blue staters traitors.
I see some problems with your “neofederalist” approach, though. For one thing, if the red states don’t set their taxes high enough to take care of their own elderly, disabled, unemployed, and children, then they will just end up offloading large numbers of such people onto the more adequate social services of the blue states. So the red states will still be siphoning off blue-state resources.
You could get around that with fairly draconian restrictions on interstate immigration, but that would undermine the goal of citizens freely choosing their state of residence, besides being difficult to enforce.
There has to be a certain level of uniformity in order to avoid this kind of “free-rider” problem. If it’s easy for elderly or unemployed people to move to a neighboring blue state, and the alternative is staying in the red state and starving to death, then the red state has just “devolved” its own social-services costs onto the back of its neighbor.
Sam Stone:The difference is that Alberta has taken its money and invested it in infrastructure. We don’t maintain a debt.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that you’re about to stop maintaining a debt? As I understand it, Alberta has been paying down its provincial debt in recent years but won’t actually eliminate it till next year:
No. You only need to prorate what you get out of the system according to what you put in. If you’re 85 and not working and move from Greedonia to Welfaronia, you still have to draw money for social services from Greedonia.
I think this is also how hard core Libertarians get around the open borders issue on a national level. You move here from Banglandesh, and you get no social services if you don’t work. None.
JM:No. You only need to prorate what you get out of the system according to what you put in. If you’re 85 and not working and move from Greedonia to Welfaronia, you still have to draw money for social services from Greedonia.
It sounds nice in theory, but I don’t think it’s a practical solution. If the 85-year-old’s Greedonia pension is a pittance incapable of sustaining life, then the residents of Welfaronia have to choose between spending some of their own money to keep him/her alive, or letting him/her starve.
And presumably, one of the reasons that Welfaronians are willing to pay higher taxes for better social services is precisely because they’re averse to seeing elderly people starve. So I think in any real-life scenario, the Welfaronians will still find themselves on the hook for supporting Greedonians.
None if this is “practical” in the sense that it has a snowflake’s chance in hell of every coming into being.
Not according to the OP. The whole idea behind this s “fuck the Greedonians”. Besides, if Welfaronians held their ground, few if any 85 year old Greedonians would move there. It simply wouldn’t be an issue.
JM:None [of] this is “practical” in the sense that it has a snowflake’s chance in hell of [ever] coming into being.
I know, but when we’re discussing this whole unrealistic possibility, we should try to be accurate about what it would realistically look like, if you see what I mean.
JM:Besides, if Welfaronians held their ground, few if any 85 year old Greedonians would move there.
By “if Welfaronians held their ground” you mean “if Welfaronians refused to spend any money to keep 85-year-old immigrants from Greedonia from starving on the streets of Welfaronia”, which is precisely what I’m arguing that Welfaronians are unlikely to do.
Well, lets put it this way. Did you ever expect, that we’d be attacking Iraq? I never really thought Bush was serious.
Here’s a couple of facts.
Firstly, Democrats were really pissed with Bush before the election, do you think that we’ll stop being pissed off?
Secondly, There are going to need to be major changes in the Democratic party. One of those ideas is going further to the right. That doesn’t have to be opposed to Democratic ideals on the state-wide level.
Thirdly, Republicans are already creating half of the progress. They want the federal government to be small, and before Bush came along, it would have been simple. Also there are probably enough fiscal conservative republicans to start the first few steps down that road.
Well, that would be their choice then. But I have no doubt that Welfaronians would harden their hearts pretty quick if freeloading Greedonians flooded across the border. These things have a natural tendancy to work themselves out.
JM:But I have no doubt that Welfaronians would harden their hearts pretty quick if freeloading Greedonians flooded across the border. These things have a natural tendancy to work themselves out.
By “work themselves out”, you apparently mean “reach a state where indigent 85-year-olds can starve in Greedonia or Welfaronia”.
Gee, I’m glad that situation worked out so well, aren’t you? :rolleyes:
Not at all. It’s unlcear that 85 year olds will starve in Greedonia. Greedonia recently changed it’s name to Libertonia, has a thriving business climate and a strong philanthropic tradition. The 85 year old might find a few extra treats over in Welfaronia, but he’s actually doing OK right where he is.
I don’t have anything of substance to add, but I, for one, welcome our neo-federalist government and would also be more than willing to relocate for it.
JM:It’s unlcear that 85 year olds will starve in Greedonia. Greedonia recently changed it’s name to Libertonia, has a thriving business climate and a strong philanthropic tradition. The 85 year old might find a few extra treats over in Welfaronia, but he’s actually doing OK right where he is.
Oh, I see. The solution to the potential problem of a red state not providing adequate social services to keep its indigent elderly and others from starving to death is that—it’ll never happen! All red states will be rich and philanthropic! Gosh, how fortunate.
You strongly remind me of the early Communists who responded in a very similar way to questions about practical problems with Communism. “In the glorious People’s Republic, nobody will go hungry! People will want to produce for the good of society and to share what they have with others!” Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it, Comrade Libertonian.
Guys… You must not know much about “the Heartland”
I am from the redest of red, and I can tell you there’s no way in hell that anyone from here would move up to a state like California just because they would live better. There are married gays! They don’t go to church! What would happen is that these people in “the heartland” would just have to come around and pay their own way, making them realize the necessity of some kind of reality-based government.
Democrats are stupid now, for paying the way of these ingrates who simply trash everything they stand for when they have the power. In terms of economic power, here’s how the red vs. blue states shake down.
Blue state: Gross State Product combined: 5.4 trillion (not including New Mexico or Iowa)