Hacker News Reader

In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws.

This is an excellent point. It's also far more expensive for lobbying groups to try to influence politicians state by state. Powerful Federal officials represent a one stop shop for buying influence, so decreasing Federal power will reduce corruption.

Exactly. And for this reason, would we be served better if there were more members of Congress? (http://www.quora.com/Would-US-citizens-be-served-better-if-t...).

How many members would it take before lobbying became prohibitively expensive?

> Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes

But the South was. You're ignoring the evidence of history. Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse, and it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws.

Edit: > No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy

The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. 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.

>But the South was.

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.

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?

I think most readings of the commerce clause prohibit taxes on crossing state lines, it was just an example of game theory gone awry.

     > it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi
     > and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the
     > chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws.

He's the naive one? Frankly, what you're suggesting is absurd and borderline offensive. As if the enlightened North and federal legislation are all that prevents the re-institution of Jim Crow laws! Give me a break.

Let's take a look at what modern-day Mississippi residents actually have to say:

http://mississippibelieveit.com/home/

>The “good ole boy” network alive and well in Mississippi? Not hardly. Our new “network” consists of more black elected officials than any other state in the country – a number that grew from a mere 81 in 1970 to 897 in 2000.

Mississippi is as racist today as Russia is Communist. Give me a break.

Take a look at the legislative maps.

Creating 99% black districts to consolidate the black vote into the smallest number of seats isn't really support for your position, even if the people doing it are pure post-racial political optimizers (they're not post-racial).

Also, I don't know how old you are, but you do realize that many southern people from 50 short years ago are still alive, right? You're positing that right after the civil rights act was passed, all those people firehosing black people and setting the dogs on them and stuff, they just changed their minds and did a 180? And raised their kids that way?

Every state gerrymanders. Mississippi is hardly alone on this.

>In the state of Ohio, a conversation between Republican officials was recorded that demonstrated that redistricting was being done to aid their political candidates. Furthermore, the discussions assessed race of voters as a factor in redistricting, because African-Americans had backed Democratic candidates. Republicans apparently removed approximately 13,000 African American voters from the district of Jim Raussen, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives, in an attempt to tip the scales in what was once a competitive district for Democratic candidates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States

That's coming at you from blue-collar freezing-cold northern Ohio.

Furthermore, "right after" the Civil Rights act was passed? It was passed a full 47 years ago.

But the South was

Digression.

The South was as racist as the North, at the time. Y'all just got better press about it.

Everyone knows about the sunset laws below the Mason-Dixon: hardly anyone knows that many small towns in Wisconsin had the same laws right up until 1970. The very worst - in my opinion - fights over desegregation happened in Yankee-land when schools started busing white kids to black schools and visa-versa.

Switzerland is really not a model when it comes to racism. Until very recently, its government was blatantly organized along ethnic lines, with clear glass ceilings for some groups. Public opinion is very conservative on this matter, and most laws are enacted in clearly racist terms.