Let the states compete!
Almost a week ago, I wrote that I supported Oregon's right to have a right-to-die law. "Libertarians" would say that the law is right, but I'm not going even that far. I just think that Oregon, as a sovereign state, has the right, under the Constitution, to have such a law. And I also think that it is good for states to have various laws, not only laws that I agree with, but also laws with which I disagree.
"Why would you want states to have laws you disagree with?" I can hear you ask. (And by the way, your sentence looks silly with a preposition tacked on!) I'll tell you why. Because states should compete for your business.
"Whoa!" you exclaim. "States are not a business!" Why not? If we had a small federal government, like we should, then all the states could have their own laws, their own levels of tax burden and collectivism, their own business environment: they would be almost as diverse as the different states of the world. They'll compete for your tax dollars on the basis of whose laws, ability to attract employers, and tax code all seem like the best fit for you. And don't think they wouldn't do all they can to attract the most (and best) taxpayers.
"Is that really what you think a state government should be about, you greedy, capitalist pig?" Hmm, maybe I should think about this more: what if the state was so concerned with getting money that it allowed crime to run rampant? But then again, that would scare the taxpayers, so they wouldn't do that. What if the state allowed horrible pollution to fill the skies and the water and the ground? You don't suppose that would bother the voters, do you?
Maybe the federal government could have laws restricting the environmental impact one state could have on another - and when it gets to bad in one state to continue living there, people move their tax-paying wallets to a more environmentally-friendly state, and the state government would have to do something.
The way it is now, the people of Massachusetts and the people of Alabama, through the various branches of the federal government, are fighting over what takes place in Iowa. Or Kansans and Californians are going head-to-head over something happening or not happening in Wyoming. It doesn't make sense. It's like millions of people are being nosy neighbors on a whole new level. Can't we let freedom prevail? Let each state do its own thing, according to the will of its people, and if it gets to be too much for some, they can move to the state that suits them.
SRS
[Note: I fixed the link to the Constitution. Apparently congress thought it too ironic to have a direct link to the Constitution on their website, but I discovered the problem and fixed it. However, it cease to work at any time, due to circumstances entirely out of my control. If that happens, please let me know so I can fix it again.]
"Why would you want states to have laws you disagree with?" I can hear you ask. (And by the way, your sentence looks silly with a preposition tacked on!) I'll tell you why. Because states should compete for your business.
"Whoa!" you exclaim. "States are not a business!" Why not? If we had a small federal government, like we should, then all the states could have their own laws, their own levels of tax burden and collectivism, their own business environment: they would be almost as diverse as the different states of the world. They'll compete for your tax dollars on the basis of whose laws, ability to attract employers, and tax code all seem like the best fit for you. And don't think they wouldn't do all they can to attract the most (and best) taxpayers.
"Is that really what you think a state government should be about, you greedy, capitalist pig?" Hmm, maybe I should think about this more: what if the state was so concerned with getting money that it allowed crime to run rampant? But then again, that would scare the taxpayers, so they wouldn't do that. What if the state allowed horrible pollution to fill the skies and the water and the ground? You don't suppose that would bother the voters, do you?
Maybe the federal government could have laws restricting the environmental impact one state could have on another - and when it gets to bad in one state to continue living there, people move their tax-paying wallets to a more environmentally-friendly state, and the state government would have to do something.
The way it is now, the people of Massachusetts and the people of Alabama, through the various branches of the federal government, are fighting over what takes place in Iowa. Or Kansans and Californians are going head-to-head over something happening or not happening in Wyoming. It doesn't make sense. It's like millions of people are being nosy neighbors on a whole new level. Can't we let freedom prevail? Let each state do its own thing, according to the will of its people, and if it gets to be too much for some, they can move to the state that suits them.
SRS
[Note: I fixed the link to the Constitution. Apparently congress thought it too ironic to have a direct link to the Constitution on their website, but I discovered the problem and fixed it. However, it cease to work at any time, due to circumstances entirely out of my control. If that happens, please let me know so I can fix it again.]
posted by weblogbob83 at 11:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home