[bhauer]

True. But there are 50 of them in the United States. While moving to a state with more sensible laws is obviously less liquid than spending your money elsewhere, it's nevertheless a marketplace with 50 participants and they do learn from each others' experiments. Generally, the more decisions that are handed further down the hierarchy the better. If some matters are locked up at the state level, that might be a shame, but we should at least be happy they are not stuck at the federal level.

[zymhan]

How exactly does your model propose to fix the issues of, say, states refusing to fill the gap in health care coverage because of their opposition to the entire existence of the federal government?

Some things need to be guaranteed for every American citizen, and that can't simply be left up to the states to "experiment" with. We're talking about government here, not scrum teams.

[bhauer]

> Some things need to be guaranteed for every American citizen, and that can't simply be left up to the states to "experiment" with. We're talking about government here, not scrum teams.

There is virtually no way to have a consensus on what precisely needs to be guaranteed. I would personally prefer to move to a state that does not "guarantee" health insurance (I will pay for health insurance myself).

But like I said, moving isn't a liquid matter. There's quite a bit of friction involved. So states are imperfect, yes. But I still prefer 50 imperfect laboratories to 1 imperfect monolith. The potential of moving to a local maximum of ideal-fit with my tastes means a lot to me.

For what it's worth, the same rationale is why I do not believe the United States should adopt any given policy simply because it is done by a majority of other first-world countries. Policies should stand on their merits and should not be adopted simply to be aligned with other countries. I prefer diversity.

[drewcrawford]

> There is virtually no way to have a consensus on what precisely needs to be guaranteed. I would personally prefer to move to a state that does not "guarantee" health insurance (I will pay for health insurance myself).

There was a consensus; we call it the Constitution. The problem is that American lawmakers today aren't able to negotiate a single law let alone a document like that.

States are not really a solution to that problem: large states have gridlock much like the feds, and small states create the patchwork of laws that prevent me from mailing you a beer but ensuring some lawyer at LargeCo will be paid to figure it out. And all states are more vulnerable to corporate capture than the feds are.

Laboratories of democracy work when we have democracies that are worth studying, and when politicians adopt fact-based policies instead of ideological ones. But we do not live in that world, and have not for at least 30 years.

[morgante]

> How exactly does your model propose to fix the issues of, say, states refusing to fill the gap in health care coverage because of their opposition to the entire existence of the federal government?

Move to a better state.

[zymhan]

You ever think that there might be societal benefits to people living near their family? Such as help with child care, for example. Moving isn't that simple. And it requires a significant upfront cost.

[mooreds]

> they do learn from each others' experiments

Do they?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/kansass-...