[narrowrail]

Madison discusses factionalism in Federalist No. 10, and as I read it, basically concludes that all these competing desires/interests and/or beliefs would be best served by a federal republic where locals would be able to solve their problems in the appropriate way for their constituents. So, decentralizing power away from Washington D.C. and putting it in the hands people more directly. Some people cannot accept this and would like to exert control over people living +1000 miles away. There is just too much diversity to manage 300M people from a central authority without sacrificing liberty. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and authoritarian ideas of governance must be vigilantly opposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#Madison.27s_...

[derefr]

I feel like this made sense for the 1700s United States because everyone there was a recent immigrant—which is to say, people with both the desire and the proven ability to pick up and move to find a place that better suits them.

When you have communities of mostly that type of person, you can just make each community into its own little experiment, and tell everyone to go on a Gulliver's Travels-esque journey to find the right community for them, then settle down.

When your communities, on the other hand, are full of "entrenched" families/clans—groups of people who, for reasons of proximity or tradition, just won't move no matter how bad things get where they're currently living—then the Great Republic Experiment breaks down a little.

Specifically, it breaks because you'll get people who just really don't fit in a place, and would be better suited to some other system of laws available in some other state or municipality... but want to stay where they are anyway, despite suffering strong disutilities. You'll get large numbers of such people, in fact. (See: Detroit.)

A large part of the reason for federalization comes down to helping those people by guaranteeing certain minimum quality-of-life benefits in all those communities, whether the majority there support them or not. Which results in communities that need to share more laws than not, and rapidly lose much of the benefits of separation.

If everyone had kept the "immigrant mentality"—of being willing to drop your existing life to find personal liberty somewhere else—then the US wouldn't much need a federal government (beyond a sort of inverted border-police, working to ensure that people aren't being inhibited by local laws from crossing state lines—a "non-underground" railroad.)

But Americans haven't kept that mentality, and I'm not sure there's a way to re-instill it. It's just, as far as I know, a personality trait—one that happened to have 100% representation in the 18th century US, but then reverted to the mean in their descendants.

[sinxoveretothex]

I have a pretty big problem with the idea that if people won't do what's in their best interest, then we ought to make sure the system doesn't suck too much, even though it's guaranteed to suck because of those people's decisions (per your contextualization).

Why couldn't a government incentivize these people to move (say by offering subventions for moving out of some given place) instead of of incentivizing staying (as I understand your description to be)?

I'm fully ready to believe that government just can't be trusted with such far-reaching and non-obvious schemes, but I'm curious to know if someone can think of a way such a scheme would fail in practice (in other words: how is it like communism)?

[narrowrail]

>When your communities...are full of "entrenched" families/clans—groups of people who, for reasons of proximity or tradition, just won't move no matter how bad things get

This is a really great point, and I am admittedly biased as someone that grew up moving 4 times across state lines. Meeting new people and figuring out the local 'vibe' was part of my upbringing.

Moving is hard, but it's doable. I write this as a much less ambitious person than most seem on HN (and older).

[throwaway2048]

Not just want to say, but have no other real choice but to stay.

[sinxoveretothex]

What do you mean? What could prevent someone from moving even though they really want to?

[jackmott]

I like the idea but unfortunately almost nothing about modern society involve choices that only affect the people right around you. You can't build a modern car without spanning many miles of people. When you shit, it goes into everyone's water supply, when you burn stuff for energy, it goes into all of our air. When you drink water, it comes from finite reserves that are all connected and we all share.

So you are right, I cannot accept this because it isn't compatible with reality.

[ryanmarsh]

> almost nothing about modern society involve choices that only affect the people right around you

Please visit a city council meeting.

> When you shit, it goes into everyone's water supply

When I take a shit it most certainly affects no one outside of Texas. There isn't a river in the country flowing fast enough to make my assertion false.

[gnaritas]

You're being disingenuous by ignoring that which you can't refute; his point is true regardless of his bad example of shit. When you pollute the the air, you pollute it for everyone, when you harm the environment, the effects aren't only local.

[ryanmarsh]

I'm saying that's not the issue.

[narrowrail]

>nothing about modern society involve choices that only affect the people right around you

This is covered by tort law. If you can prove damages, you can have your grievances addressed.

If we adopt nationalized health care, your argument is that you should be able to dictate my dietary choices? Even if my goal is to do it like my grandfather that never once visited a doctor (died at 68, which is plenty for me)?

Edit: To be clear, the basic premise of yours that I quoted could be used to justify just about anything. That is a power I refuse to grant to any entity, no matter how good their intentions.