Cofederate government

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Watching how an evenly divided government is simply unable to do anything of consequence unless both parties agree with their corporate overlords, I had an idea regarding a way to manage federal government (not that different from the idea of letting the budget be chosen by taxpayers):

Federal taxes aren't universal, only states willing to fund a particular government agency tax their citizens to fund it. An example of this would be those states who want to fund the EPA tax their citizens and receive the corresponding services. If a state doesn't want the EPA testing their air and water they don't fund it and let their state regulate and enforce (or not) state laws. On the same token, non funding states can't vote on legislation for agencies that they don't fund, therefore, a bill for XYZ regulation is only voted on by those interested (you don't want ATF in your state and don't pay for ATF? Then you can't vote against the director of the agency or it's regulations). If a state doesn't want to pay for the Department of Defense then no bases will be placed in the state.

A variation of that theme would be to liquidate the Federal Government completely and let the willing states to create a Co-Federate government in which the states agree which agencies they want to fund.

Not that I think that such proposals would ever be considered nor their implementation be practical if for instance a state decides to fund an agency just for the pleasure to block any related legislative efforts, but I'm currently inclined to think that a solution as such not only would stop the current legislative gridlock but be more fair with the citizens and their beliefs.

Any comments? Comparisons with the current EU (incredibly complicated) way to do things?

[Aggie]

I'm not a believer in democracy, especially in the current cultural climate (parallel cultural systems in which the masses are encouraged to compete at stupidity, and the elites are encouraged to compete at making money for themselves at all costs).  Socialist that I am, I think that there needs to be some government oversight in areas that may not be popular with the public until they need those particular services.  The EPA is a good example of that; plenty of people are vaguely against being taxed to protect the environment, at least until it's their drinking water that's full of cadmium. Allowing an opt-out for environmental policies would absolutely result in corporate interests pushing heavily on a few states to do so.  There'd be an initial job boom for manufacturing and resource exploitation in those states, likely for a decade or two, before the public figured out that their state was turning into a toxic disaster area.  At that point, the voters would start clamouring for the EPA to step back in, leaving the rest of the country to pick up the majority of the tab for the multitude of new Superfund sites created by the temporary opt-out. I could also see many states getting pressured into opting out due the fear of losing jobs and business to other states. Alberta tried to raise royalties on petroleum producers a few years back to fund public services, and saw the producers blatantly move exploration and development to Saskatchewan in retaliation until they relented.

The siren song of 'less taxes!' is too seductive a slogan; expecting the public to make rational long-term decisions in the face of it is overly optimistic.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But stupidity is a given! An interesting example is what currently happens with fracking on this side of the border, everybody wants the money until they get their own water supply polluted and fire in the kitchen sink. It reminds me of a line from Red Planet (yes, I know...):

"Man's a party animal. If he is doing okay nothing else matters. That's not going to change. "

The problem is that the stupid are taking the rest of us with them, so while I do agree that they may well take everybody further down, their zone of influence would be limited until they wise up. They will not understand until the consequences affect them.

Obviously certain things are beyond repair, like global warming, and the stupid in the mid west will not care even if the stupid in Houston are under water.

In the end I do agree with you that letting people do stupid things on a large scale is never a good option, but as things go it would seem that they are very capable of doing them as things stand now.

[Griffin NoName]

Everything always sinks to the lowest common denominator. Stupid will always win. (until they get wiped out).

[Aggie]

A state is too big of a unit of stupidity to allow it to run rampant, IMHO.  Especially if the state is Alaska or on the 49th parallel.    For that matter, I can't easily identify a suitably small unit of stupidity beyond the individual. Even a stupid city/county could affect its neighbours by placing problems near the limits of their territory.

Rich stupid isn't too concerned about any of this, as they can buy the services necessary or just move away from problems. Watching the wrangling over health care in the US has made that quite clear, and it's not too far different up here, really.  Public services are for the benefit of those parts of the public that can't afford private services.  If the dominant value system sees those with less as deserving to have less, and those with more as being able to buy everything they deserve, there's an issue. The same might happen to 'have-not' states with poor economies; they might get pushed into giving up essential services that the public actually would prefer to have, simply to cut costs. It's a slippery slope that might lead to a complete lack of essential government agencies. If the EPA (to keep with that example) is cut from all but California and a couple of other states, it effectively gets gutted and becomes a state-run enterprise.

With respect to the EPA under such a system, perhaps if it was made clear that any environmental costs racked up in the absence of the EPA were state responsibility... or hey, maybe just actually hold businesses responsible for their own messes? 

[Lindorm]

The problem is that the stupid are taking the rest of us with them, so while I do agree that they may well take everybody further down, their zone of influence would be limited until they wise up. They will not understand until the consequences affect them.

Even a "limited" zone of influence can be a major disaster for a very large area. A Texan relaxation of environmental protection rules for oil drilling at sea will not just kill Galveston Bay and pollute texan shores, just as the fallout from Tjernobyl and Fukushima had significant problems respecting national boundaries.

I'd say that a large part of the problem is narrowmindedness and an inability to see beyond the tip of one's nose. What is needed is not more local isolationism, but an awareness of the bigger world and the realization that noone, not even a conservative gun-toting and god-fearing conservative USian is an island. I'd say that US isolationism and exceptionalism is a major problem in today's world.

[Swatopluk]

I dream of a CO₂ deflector shield that could be erected around the US.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I'd say that a large part of the problem is narrowmindedness and an inability to see beyond the tip of one's nose.

But I don't see a realistic way to deal with both the stupid+self-interested, corporations want to pollute unchecked and have managed to convince a portion of the population that if we let them they will give jobs back (which is a total and complete lie). I guess I'm having doubts if keeping the little, ineffectual regulations in place is helping us more than having serious regulations in one side while the stupid get their wishes.

Perhaps I'm wrong, nice examples 'libertarianism' are happening all over, in Nigeria environmentally, in China and SE Asia laborwise, and in all those happy places of the world where corporations get away with murder and we don't complain because the mess is far away enough.

[Griffin NoName]

Until they stop making profit out of utilities I see no hope.

[The Meromorph]

The two three changes I would like to see in America are.
1 Put re-districting into the hands of an independent, apolitical body.
2 Legislate counter the Supreme Court decision that money = speech.
3 Completely revamp the constitutional status of corporations. Officers to be criminally liable for misdeeds of corporation. Also for 'wilfull' financial misconduct. Also Corporations do not have the rights of citizens.