States Rights

[David S]

When the founders created our constitution their intent was that the federal government should have a limited role, mainly defense, the post office and a few other simple duties. Everything else was left to the states or the people. Would you support returning to that type of government if it meant that your state could formulate its own policies? The states would still be bound by the constitution but each state would be free to;
Set their own taxes ( Federal taxes would be greatly reduced).
Create as many social programs as they want or no social programs if that’s what the people want.
Permit or prohibit gay marriage.
Decide it’s own drug laws.
Prohibit or allow school prayer.

The people of each state could have the policies they wanted, and if someone was really unhappy with his state he could move to another more to his liking. We would still retain the benefit of being one large country for defense purposes. Would you support this ?

[A18]

Yep, it's a good idea.

[Lunar]

I'd have to move to Nevada, but sure.

[Rob]

I'd support it.

[Sam Spade]

This is the way I personally believe things should be anyway on these issues. 

[opebo]

This is tempting, in that the enlightened states would no longer be dragged down by the benighted ones.  On the other hand there would be little freedom in the South - quite possibly still slavery!

Besides, if states set their own tax and spending policies while still maintaining freedom to move from state to state one would have a 'flight to the bottom'.

 

[David S]

This is tempting, in that the enlightened states would no longer be dragged down by the benighted ones.  On the other hand there would be little freedom in the South - quite possibly still slavery!

Besides, if states set their own tax and spending policies while still maintaining freedom to move from state to state one would have a 'flight to the bottom'.

As noted in  the original post the states would still be bound by the constitution, so slavery would remain banned.

The country seems to be deeply divided on many issues, as we all know from this very forum. Some people from the extreme left as well as the extreme right have even been saying their state should secede from the nation. Thats a small percentage of the people but I think it reflects a discontent with a large percentage of the people. These seem to be irreconcilable differences. Its  a question of following a path that goes one way or a path that goes in the exact opposite direction. There is no compromise position which will make both sides happy. 

The idea of states rights is that the people of each state can have what they want without having to secede. It seems like a better option to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "flight to the bottom". Could you elaborate?

[opebo]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "flight to the bottom". Could you elaborate?

Sure.  If states could set their own tax rates and social programs, and yet people had the freedom to move from state to state, all the rich people would move to the low tax states, and all the working-class people would move to the states that provided social programs.  Hence, it would be impossible to provide any social programs or tax much at all.

[A18]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "flight to the bottom". Could you elaborate?

Sure.  If states could set their own tax rates and social programs, and yet people had the freedom to move from state to state, all the rich people would move to the low tax states, and all the working-class people would move to the states that provided social programs.  Hence, it would be impossible to provide any social programs or tax much at all.

Things are not that dynamic, and if they were, the exact same thing could be said about countries.

[opebo]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "flight to the bottom". Could you elaborate?

Sure.  If states could set their own tax rates and social programs, and yet people had the freedom to move from state to state, all the rich people would move to the low tax states, and all the working-class people would move to the states that provided social programs.  Hence, it would be impossible to provide any social programs or tax much at all.

Things are not that dynamic, and if they were, the exact same thing could be said about countries.

The exact same thing is often said about countries, especially within the EU.

[David S]

I'm not sure what you mean by the "flight to the bottom". Could you elaborate?

Sure.  If states could set their own tax rates and social programs, and yet people had the freedom to move from state to state, all the rich people would move to the low tax states, and all the working-class people would move to the states that provided social programs.  Hence, it would be impossible to provide any social programs or tax much at all.

Would wealthy Liberals leave the states that are doing the things they want, just to escape taxes? I don't know if that would happen. 

The important thing in my estimation would be attracting business. Without business you cannot have a healthy economy. So states would need to have a business friendly environment. That would mean low business taxes, but not necessarily low taxes on the residents.

Certainly states with excessive taxation and/or regulation would probably see a loss of some business. Right now many business' are heading to Mexico and China. Possibly under the states rights plan  they might just move to another state instead.