State Sovereignty Issue

[skeptik]

De-centralization, and reduced duplication would cause an increase in efficiency of tax dollar spending, that the current system is failing at miserably.

No it wouldn't, it would just produce a different model of deficiency. I honestly cannot answer as to which system would be better, but neither (the one we have now and the one you want) are very good.

 

[Dak]

I would have thought the opposite. States are becoming increasingly obsolete - when they were created, each one was like the whole world to the population because most of them rarely left it or had the ability to communicate with those in other states. There's not really much that the federal government couldn't do if given the power and resources. It seems to me they exist mainly as manifestations of nationalism on a state-based level and as an outsider it's difficult to understand the emphasis on it.

You have to understand a fundamental aspect of management, which is the further you are from what you are managing, either in actual distance or in "chain of command", the less effective/efficient the management is going to be.

State government, given the reduced area of responsibility, and the direct/personal interest in local success, will cause more effective and efficient management and application of resources.

Our Federal government is the pinnacle of in-efficieny. While any governing body is going to have a measure of inefficiancy, it is greatly reduced when most of the expenditures made directly affect those making the decisions.

No it wouldn't, it would just produce a different model of deficiency. I honestly cannot answer as to which system would be better, but neither (the one we have now and the one you want) are very good.

Answered above. Decentralization puts the power closer to the problems, allowing for more accurate, direct assessment and if necessary, creative problem solving. It also cuts down on much of the "middleman", which is a drain on resources.

 

[skeptik]

No, you didn't answer me, you answered around me. Your suggestion doesn't address the fact that some states need more aid than others and more aid than they can gather themselves, while some states gather more than they need. This is where the federal government is needed to distribute it. The US is more than just a collection of states.

 

[Dak]

No, you didn't answer me, you answered around me. Your suggestion doesn't address the fact that some states need more aid than others and more aid than they can gather themselves, while some states gather more than they need. This is where the federal government is needed to distribute it. The US is more than just a collection of states.

That is not a fact. Outside of emergency situations, relative need is debatable.

The U.S. was not intended to really be more than a collection of states. Unfortunately where we have been moving for the last 150+ years is away from the state-based system and it is not functioning well at all as it is currently systemized.

 

[skeptik]

First of all, do you really think that every one of our 50 states could fully provide for themselves on their own and not be a horrible place to live?

Secondly, whatever the country was set out to be we clearly are not now, so that's wholly irrelevant. It's not like we're going to go backward. Besides, a state-based system only works as well as by the same principles of a true democracy; namely, both only work as well as their constituent parts. And frankly there are more than a few weak links. Should we abandon them? Should we let them continue to hurt themselves? Should we remove them from the union and pretend like they have nothing to do with us?

 

[mutantllama]

Maine needs to jump on this so we can secede to Canada.

We are a lot like Canada. I think we would fit well with them.

 

[Dak]

First of all, do you really think that every one of our 50 states could fully provide for themselves on their own and not be a horrible place to live?

Horrible place to live is relative sir. I think New York City or anywhere near it would be a horrible place to live. Other people think it's the greatest place on earth.

Secondly, whatever the country was set out to be we clearly are not now, so that's wholly irrelevant. It's not like we're going to go backward.

That's like arguing that a fat person losing weight is "going backward". Our bloated federal system was a bad direction to take, so no, it's not irrelevent, and trimming the fat is not going backwards.

Besides, a state-based system only works as well as by the same principles of a true democracy; namely, both only work as well as their constituent parts.

Of course. But see previous posts as to how even with either system (national based/state based) working "optimally", decentralized control (state based) is going to be better by default.

And frankly there are more than a few weak links. Should we abandon them? Should we let them continue to hurt themselves? Should we remove them from the union and pretend like they have nothing to do with us?

How do we know some of these "weak links" A: Haven't been caused by the current system, B. Aren't really weak links if you are merely referring to an "under-populated" states like Wyoming, which attract people who want the open spaces instead of the city life.

If you are referring to states like Mississippi, obviously they have been sliding further and further behind in the quality of public services provided even with all the "federal help". So obviously that isn't the answer. We need a dynamic change of paradigm, and Obama's idea of change is really just more of the same.

 

[skeptik]

This has nothing to do with Obama. The fact of the matter is that the current system doesn't work, and neither does complete state sovereignty. At least not in the sense that anyone except staunch states rights advocates would mean. If we were to have REAL change, in which states were really served the best they could be served, it certainly wouldn't resemble anything as of yet mentioned in this thread.

 

[Dak]

This has nothing to do with Obama. The fact of the matter is that the current system doesn't work, and neither does complete state sovereignty. At least not in the sense that anyone except staunch states rights advocates would mean. If we were to have REAL change, in which states were really served the best they could be served, it certainly wouldn't resemble anything as of yet mentioned in this thread.

I only mentioned Obama because he is the current Federal figurehead, and because of all the people who are looking to him to fix all the nation's problems.

I am afraid you are confusing state sovereignty with total abolishion of the federal. At least we agree that the current system is broken.

 

[challenge_everything]

You have to understand a fundamental aspect of management, which is the further you are from what you are managing, either in actual distance or in "chain of command", the less effective/efficient the management is going to be.

State government, given the reduced area of responsibility, and the direct/personal interest in local success, will cause more effective and efficient management and application of resources.

Our Federal government is the pinnacle of in-efficieny. While any governing body is going to have a measure of inefficiancy, it is greatly reduced when most of the expenditures made directly affect those making the decisions.

There's no logical connection between centralism and decreased efficiency and it's not logical to say that a centralised government is less efficient because of distance or chain of command. Firstly, because distance is a non-factor these days. Secondly because it doesn't necessarily require a chain of command if a federal department directly distributes its services without intermediary.

Thirdly and most importantly, to use your business analogy, management is often centralised despite distance because it's quicker, cheaper and more efficient to do something once at head office than individually in each store. Ie if each store is selling the same things, it's going to be cheaper and quicker to create an advertisement once for the entire chain, rather than allowing each store to separately create advertising. Likewise in government, why (theoretically) do you need 50 separate criminal codes when you could have one national code?

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm fairly confident in my belief that certain individual states on certain issues have much more stupid ideas than the federal government. The federal government needs to be there to prevent states from infringing on the rights of the citizens of any given state. The federal government is also essential to intrastate relations, which are almost always overlooked by the most vehement states' rights proponents. I agree that overall states should have more freedom in some areas than they do now, but I also think that a nationwide framework is extremely important.

I agree with your first comment. I (as most here probably know) support any form of smaller government, and I do believe that the Federal Government has had too much control in the past over individual states. I also believe that more locally organized governments (i.e. state governments) are better for citizens, because it presents a tighter community atmosphere. There may be less federal government regulation, and I agree that this could potentially result in some states manipulating their power to their citizens' disadvantage.

However, I also believe that state-organized government creates a much closer relationship between citizen and government. I believe that, on the flip side, citizens can actually acquire more power in a state government system, because they have less channels and red tape to navigate through. Granted, this is only a theory; but I see positive results as well, as far as citizens' and workers' rights are concerned.

 

[Dak]

There's no logical connection between centralism and decreased efficiency and it's not logical to say that a centralised government is less efficient because of distance or chain of command. Firstly, because distance is a non-factor these days.

Distance is a factor. Being able to call someone and get an update, or fly over to somewhere once in a while is not the same thing as working in a situation on a daily basis. And really, how often do politicians from one state go look at other states? Rarely, and if they do it is merely for a speaking engagement.

Secondly because it doesn't necessarily require a chain of command if a federal department directly distributes its services without intermediary.

This sounds good, but is absurd in practice. Due to the size of the country and the amount of people we are talking about, there will be multiple people involved between the decisions and the application. The most efficient method is for the money to travel as little distance from the source as possible.
Even if you removed states as a governing body, then you would merely have federal regulators/management on the regional and local levels , and the money still has to travel all the way to the top before coming back down. In-efficient.

Thirdly and most importantly, to use your business analogy, management is often centralised despite distance because it's quicker, cheaper and more efficient to do something once at head office than individually in each store. Ie if each store is selling the same things, it's going to be cheaper and quicker to create an advertisement once for the entire chain, rather than allowing each store to separately create advertising. Likewise in government, why (theoretically) do you need 50 separate criminal codes when you could have one national code?

For the advertisement comparison, this is the reason the US Central/Federal Government was given the power over a common currency and common defence etc.

Why do you need 50 seperate criminal codes? For freedom of choice. One state could outlaw beer/drugs/tobacco etc, another state could allow everything etc etc. So whether you want to shoot/drink/smoke it up, or whether you are against the vices, you have a place to go. Different physical locales have different needs.

For public service, different states have different needs just like different stores in a retail company have different needs.
When I worked retail, we had stuff that sold and stuff that didn't. So obviously each month the store manager would order more of what sold and not order what we still had sitting on the shelf untouched. In other stores, those items that were left unsold at our location may have selling like crazy.

In a central management situation, one guy would look at the overall numbers and be like "send 15 x_item to every store each month, and 3 of y_item" when we need 20 y_item and no x_item.

Einherjar neatly simplified one over-arching ideal for localized government is that it keeps government close to it's purpose and source, which is the people.

 

[challenge_everything]

For the advertisement comparison, this is the reason the US Central/Federal Government was given the power over a common currency and common defence etc.

Why do you need 50 seperate criminal codes? For freedom of choice. One state could outlaw beer/drugs/tobacco etc, another state could allow everything etc etc. So whether you want to shoot/drink/smoke it up, or whether you are against the vices, you have a place to go. Different physical locales have different needs.

For public service, different states have different needs just like different stores in a retail company have different needs.
When I worked retail, we had stuff that sold and stuff that didn't. So obviously each month the store manager would order more of what sold and not order what we still had sitting on the shelf untouched. In other stores, those items that were left unsold at our location may have selling like crazy.

In a central management situation, one guy would look at the overall numbers and be like "send 15 x_item to every store each month, and 3 of y_item" when we need 20 y_item and no x_item.

Einherjar neatly simplified one over-arching ideal for localized government is that it keeps government close to it's purpose and source, which is the people.

That was why I said "theoretically" in my last post. You've hit on the one reason why the states still have relevance and that's local culture. But by your argument we can keep breaking it down further: the needs of inner city Los Angeles are hardly the same as those of Californian farmers (I assume there are such a thing??).

I'm not denying the ongoing importance of the states. Obviously they still have their place (increasingly limited though it might be in my opinion) mainly due to people's inability to see beyond their backyards. But the world is moving increasingly towards centralism (both within nations and inter-nationally). Europeans are passing more and more power to the EU because as the saying goes, the world is getting smaller, and more and more things need to be dealt with on a less-localised level. This attachment Americans have towards their state-identity frankly seems antiquated and bizarre to most of the world.

 

[Dak]

That was why I said "theoretically" in my last post. You've hit on the one reason why the states still have relevance and that's local culture. But by your argument we can keep breaking it down further: the needs of inner city Los Angeles are hardly the same as those of Californian farmers (I assume there are such a thing??).

Well there are city and county governments, but the scope of their responsibilities is mainly local law enforcement and utilities. Yes there are farmers in California, and CA probably should be two states anyway, especially since there is a very distinct "NorCal/SoCal" culture difference.

I'm not denying the ongoing importance of the states. Obviously they still have their place (increasingly limited though it might be in my opinion) mainly due to people's inability to see beyond their backyards. But the world is moving increasingly towards centralism (both within nations and inter-nationally). Europeans are passing more and more power to the EU because as the saying goes, the world is getting smaller, and more and more things need to be dealt with on a less-localised level. This attachment Americans have towards their state-identity frankly seems antiquated and bizarre to most of the world.

The world may have been/be moving towards centralism, but our current situation is showing why it is bad. The EU is struggling to maintain control and according to the word coming out of Eastern Europe, they are very close to failing. The giant economic corporations got in trouble for trying to combine and centralize their different products.

All things equal, the smaller the area of responsibility, the better the job will be done. In government, the smaller and more localized, the better the representation will be.

 

[Dak]

Texas introduces HCR 50

 

[waif]

I really don't trust most states to not be retarded in certain areas.

.

De-centralized systems are more resilient and efficient, and thats the way the writers of the US Constitution intended the country to run.

NO.
Jesus. Are you fucking joking?

 

[Dak]

Jesus. Are you fucking joking?

Obviously you have no clue about decentralization and how it works.

Decentralization

Organizational Theory
Decentralization also called departmentalization is the policy of delegating decision-making authority down to the lower levels in an organization, relatively away from and lower in a central authority. A decentralized organization shows fewer tiers in the organizational structure, wider span of control, and a bottom-to-top flow of decision-making and flow of ideas.

In a centralized organization, the decisions are made by top executives or on the basis of pre-set policies. These decisions or policies are then enforced through several tiers of the organization after gradually broadening the span of control until it reaches the bottom tier.

In a more decentralized organization, the top executives delegate much of their decision-making authority to lower tiers of the organizational structure. As a correlation, the organization is likely to run on less rigid policies and wider spans of control among each officer of the organization. The wider spans of control also reduces the number of tiers within the organization, giving its structure a flat appearance. One advantage of this structure, if the correct controls are in place, will be the bottom-to-top flow of information, allowing all decisions among any official of the organization to be well informed about lower tier operations. For example, an experienced technician at the lowest tier of an organization might know how to increase the efficiency of the production, the bottom-to-top flow of information can allow for this knowledge to pass up to the executive officers.

Already answered is that I would rather one state be somewhat "retarded" than have the entire country be retarded.

 

[waif]

That's one theory.
Another theory is what tends to happen, a bunch of idiots running around like headless chickens, creating chaos because there's no coordination and no guiding strategy. Centralization is absolutely more efficient. The problem with it is that it achieves said efficiency by ignoring the little problems that crop up.

 

[Dak]

That's one theory.
Another theory is what tends to happen, a bunch of idiots running around like headless chickens, creating chaos because there's no coordination and no guiding strategy. Centralization is absolutely more efficient. The problem with it is that it achieves said efficiency by ignoring the little problems that crop up.

There is a difference between decentralization and total anarchy.
Also, little problem is relative, and usually small problems that get ignored long enough turn into big problems.

You obviously don't really understand decentralization in regards to how this would work in a consitutionally functioning United States, because your example is what would happen if the federal was totally abolished, which isn't what the debate is.

 

[waif]

I was using hyperbole. Thank you for taking everything literally. I didn't mean they wouldn't actually have heads.

My guess is that you want essentially what Thomas Jefferson wanted.
It's funny, though, because I thought you were also all gung-ho national security...not really compatible with decentralization.