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.