This all makes a lot of sense to me! Thank you.
One thing that super annoys me about the EPA (although there are many things) is that those small trucks common in Japan are not allowed in the USA because their not efficient enough for their wheelbase size - despite being way more efficient than vehicles much larger. I would love it if a state could simply ignore that regulation and then other states could access the data.
Same with flying cars. I don't want flying cars crashing into my house... but I'm perfectly happy with Texas allowing them and working out all the requirements to make them safe and trustworthy - giving other states valuable data before making their own decisions. That passage about the maintenance paperwork is absolutely fascinating... how much innovation has been lost/not followed because of similar such rules?
I wonder if this would actually make the American people less polarized as national political figures wouldn't matter as much as individual state Governors...
If the vast majority of all government power resides at the individual state level, and if citizens are free to flee oppressive states, then no oppressive state government will be able to remain so for very long.
I require my students to read the first 29 pages of Frederic Bastiat's essay The Law. In that essay, Bastiat says:
In other words, strip the government of its powers and limit its powers as Bastiat suggests, to "the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense" then there is no reason to fight or struggle over who holds that power, as long as they are effective at combatting true injustice (i.e. violations of an individual's life, liberty, or property). That is because we will have stripped away the government's power to inflict injustice, i.e. to "legally" violate individual's rights to life, liberty, and property.
Bastiat refers to such government-initiated injustice as legal plunder, which he defines as follows:
I've never ever thought of USA states having so much power before and how that could play out. I really appreciate your time and effort with this... I'm not sure I deserve it, but I appreciate it.
Obviously it can be difficult for poorer people to flee an oppressive state, it does take resources to move interstate... but hopefully you'd see other states potentially enticing people away from oppressive states with resources or services to potentially help prove their success? Maybe?
You've mentioned using the law both individually and a state level a couple of times... how would people get fair trials? Assuming judges in a state are biased towards that state, or polluting factories have more legal resources than individuals, etc? The legal system is a huge part of this solution, but it doesn't necessarily always work fairly (at least not currently)... (which isn't a reason to not try this solution at all, I'm curious if there is a way to think about this).
Although this is true, it is the threat of people moving that will be the primary deterrent. States will know that their most productive citizens can leave and they will foster policies to protect against that. Poor people will thus benefit even if they can’t easily leave.
It’s similar to local grocery store prices. Most customers don’t go to multiple stores comparing prices, but the fact that some do and anyone can generally forces the local stores to maintain competitive prices.
Oh, that's a really good point. I keep forgetting to factor in the threat or the potential of eventualities to incentivize good outcomes.
This would be the same as under the current system. Trials are already local, due to the constitutional requirement for a “jury of peers”.
The difference being that if a state is known to have a corrupt judiciary, that will be reason enough for productive members of society to leave, thus creating a strong incentive to not have a corrupt judiciary.
It's true that trials are already local, but that's potentially part of the bit I'm struggling to get my head around...
In a scenario where factories in one state are polluting the waterways required by farms in downstream states, the crime of affecting the property/liberty of the farms would fought in the factories state... and if that state has corrupt government and therefore corrupt judiciary, then the farmers won't really stand a chance, especially if the factories have the resources to delay, counter-sue, etc until the farmers run out of resources, especially since it can often take 4+ years to even get to trial.
Or would you imagine the farmer's state would take up the matter on behalf of the farmers and make it a state vs state fight?
Sorry, I'm not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to get my head around this block/bias that I have against the current justice system.