Hacker News Reader

Comment by peeters | Hacker News Reader

Honest question from a foreigner with a slightly less federal form of government: Why is the autonomy of the States so worth protecting? It seems like every time I see a state government clash with the federal government, it's always the state trying to protect some backward law. What are the counterpoints...I know they must exist!

View on HN

> It seems like every time I see a state government clash with the federal government, it's always the state trying to protect some backward law.

For basically every progressive ideal, none of it is pioneered by the federal government.

Gay marriage, legalization of drugs, continuing environmental standards, renewable energy, more sustainable living, and I'm sure many more, are all things that various states pass laws surrounding before the federal government steps in.

Of those you enumerate, however, only drug legalization is an action taken by the state that has needed defending against contrary federal legislation or court action. Unless, on gay marriage, you are referring to the state-level efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage rather than those to allow it.

True, I quoted the wrong part of the OP. It's more about why state autonomy could be seen as worth protecting.

The thing is, none of this is pioneered by the federal government because "it isn't their job/place" because we have the state governments that are supposed to pioneer these things. I don't think that is an argument on it's own. I will add though that I think the smaller state governments add benefit by allowing progressive changes like this to take hold and see how it turns out in a small "experiment".

I think it stems from the formation of our country. Back when the U.S. first formed the states were very much separate from each other and the federal government had very limited powers. Similar to the relationship of Europe and the E.U. However Over time U.S. citizens started to think of themselves as americans first and their state second.

Think about how european citizens feel about the E.U. Today it would be crazy to ask a country like Germany to just roll over to the demands of the E.U. But I'm sure 200 years from now, if the E.U. is still around, that line will be a lot more blurry. This is essentially the position america is in.

Fun fact: At one point U.S. states each had their own currencies

Funner fact: that form of US government (the articles of confederation) collapsed and was replaced by the Constitution we currently follow.

In short, it is to prevent secession and civil wars, and to limit federal power over individuals.

In more depth, the U.S. is vastly more culturally diverse than most other nations. Its history of open immigration means it is now culturally a distorted, but still mostly recognizable, 1:20 model of the rest of the world.

If you ever want to visit India, China, Italy, Greece, Poland, Mexico, Sweden, and Germany in one day, just fly to Chicago and buy a CTA pass.

It is not a one-size-fits-all country. If the state is protecting a law that seems backward to you, it may be because they live on the other side of the looking glass from you. To them, your opinion is backward.

In Wisconsin, you can buy olives, gin, and vermouth in the same store, but only before 9 PM. In North Carolina, you have to buy the olives and vermouth in one store, and the gin from another. Why are the laws different? Because the people who live in those places, on average, prefer it that way.

State autonomy also allows for a limited sort of political experimentation. For instance, North Carolina can experiment with telling transgender people what bathrooms they must use, and Colorado can experiment with legal recreational marijuana. By observing the change in state economics, other states can respond more appropriately to the national zeitgeist. Federally, marijuana is still schedule I, and transgender people are not strongly protected against discrimination, but state autonomy has shown that the feds are wrong about weed, and that people prefer their identity to be something that is declared rather than imposed.

In a lot of cases though, states themselves are too diverse and unwieldy to govern as a unitary entity. Texas and Massachusetts may have their differences, but Houston and Austin have much more in common with Boston than with a small town in the Piney Woods. Why shouldn't Houston be free to experiment with legalized marijuana just because the state government won't go along? By that same logic, it is state power over local governments and individuals that needs to be limited and municipal rights that need to be protected.

In my opinion, it is actually in my best interests for any government claiming jurisdiction over my person to have flawed mechanisms for enforcing its will upon me and extracting property from me. I consider that to be an adequate balancing factor for any inefficiencies it may also have in providing services or managing the commons.

Other people may prioritize such things differently.

I'm not arguing against the idea that government needs coercive powers. I'm arguing against the idea that states are the optimal organizational level to have unitary and sovereign governments.

Why are the laws different? Because the people who live in those places, on average, prefer it that way.

I agree that there is value in trying a diversity of approaches, but I'm doubtful that a "will of the people" explanation can explain the state by state differences. Assume two groups of people, one from North Carolina and one from Wisconsin, but somehow we didn't know which group was from which state. In an attempt to determine this, we poll each group with a single written question about how best to regulate the sale of olives.

At what group size are we able to reliably identify which group is which? I'm doubtful that this is possible to do with greater than 90% accuracy at any group size less than the full population of each state. To the extent that it might be possible with lower accuracy, I'd guess it's based on the "status quo" rather than an actual "preference".

For many issues, I think it's likely that the initial decision is essentially random: one merchant convinces one legislator to propose a law. That legislator trades favors with other legislators to get the law passed. With the patina of time, the arbitrary self-interested law becomes associated with prosperity, "strong moral values", and evidence that Our Great State is still in the favor of God.

ps. I'd been meaning to ask you why your moniker is "logfromblammo", but a web search delightfully answered this for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C7mNr5WMjA. I'm embarrassed to say that I previously was ignorant of this piece of retail history. Thank you.

Balance of power. You don't want one entity to get too much power. One can also argue that a state can be a better/closer representative of its people than a distant federal government formed out of many other states which may have different needs from this one state.

One can argue that a municipal government is a better representation of the people in the city (who want broadband) than some distant bureaucrat in the state capital. But this allows state to overrule municipal.

Absolutely. I was just answering parent's question: Why is the autonomy of the States so worth protecting [from federal government]?

Pick a state whose laws, people, and culture you view as being backward, ignorant, or otherwise undesirable. Let’s oversimplify and call it a bad state. The bad state also has some influence over the federal government, exercise of its power, and therefore control of good states.

Should Mississippi rule over California? Should New York rule over Texas? Most will reject at least one of these propositions. Thus, the United States are a system of divided powers.

The US is large enough, and populous enough, and spread across so many climates, that different regions disagree dramatically on how they want to be run and what is important. Sometimes a state wants to do something unconstitutional, but in general state's rights allows people to decide things for their community, without having to answer to strangers they'll never meet, 3,000 miles away.

It is perhaps instructive to note that the US is the 4th largest country by landmass. Canada, 2nd largest, is also a federation. (The other two are Russia and China)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com