[bhupy]

> There's already an economic race to the bottom dynamic among states in a lot of ways. Delegating things the federal government should provide for everyone to the states is going to make that a lot worse.

Switzerland seems to be doing just fine, though.

[justin66]

Is it? I honestly have no idea.

Their system of government (and everything else) is radically different than ours in some pretty major respects that aren't going to change without us throwing out the constitution. Some of them are relevant to the post you replied to, for example how they handle taxation and citizenship.

[bhupy]

Yes, in Switzerland nearly _everything_ is left to its states (Cantons). The Federal government is responsible for the army, currency, immigration/asylum, foreign relations, and customs. Everything else is the responsibility of the Cantons [1].

The net result is an "economic race to the bottom" that has now resulted in one of the lowest income taxes in the developed world, coupled with one of the highest standards of living.

The Swiss government is largely influenced by 19th century American federalism.

In fact, even naturalization is a Cantonal responsibility:

"The State Secretariat for Migration examines whether applicants are integrated in the Swiss way of life, are familiar with Swiss customs and traditions, comply with the Swiss rule of law, and do not endanger Switzerland's internal or external security.

The State Secretariat for Migration will then “green light” an applicant’s request to begin the naturalisation process but that does not mean citizenship is certain. Rather, cantons and municipalities have their own requirements that must be met."[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantons_of_Switzerland#Constit...

[2] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/becoming-a-citizen/29288376

[wahern]

Francis Fukuyama recently wrote an opinion piece where he argues that the dividing characteristic today between successful and broken states is trust in government, not the structure of government.

Singapore is authoritarian-democratic, Switzerland hyper federalist, but both exhibit a political culture that voluntarily provides liberal permissions to the relevant government institutions. In the United States (nationally, and in most states) and many European countries, such a culture has long since eroded from its mid-20th century apex.

[bhupy]

I'd argue that in a lot of US States, the distrust is not in all government, just in the central Federal government. Consider that every State in the Union has taxpayer subsidized State university system, state police systems, fire departments, public libraries, etc.

Maybe an optimal equilibrium is one where Vermont can be authoritarian-democratic and Texas can by hyper federalist. Singapore and Switzerland seem to work because they are small polities and everyone is on the same page.

In Switzerland's hyper confederation, everyone seems to be on the same page: that nobody is on the same page :).

[wahern]

Trust means that you also trust an institution to make concessions on your behalf, without you second guessing them. That means permitting them to make decisions that you disagree with, because you trust that in the long term such flexibility will result in a better society for all, including yourself.

Even in a city like San Francisco where people are not particularly cynical about government (i.e. that it's inherently corrupt and irredeemable, hopeless about the potential for public sector interventions), people constantly battle the government over every little action, and continue to pass ballot measures that bind government decisions. So I would argue that San Franciscans don't have a high degree of trust in their government, because trust is what you do, not in what you say.

Judging by the Singaporeans I know and the news I read, they can complain about government overreach and ineptitude just as much as any American. And I would presume the Swiss do this as well. But nonetheless they've still entrusted significant powers to their respective institutions such that those institutions can act swiftly and with a high degree of confidence that the electorate will back them.

Ever since the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars and American attempts at nation building it should be undeniable that political culture--trust, compliance, etc--matters vastly more than structure. Undoubtedly structure matters, but perhaps not in the ways we think or to the degree we think.

[bhupy]

> Trust means that you also trust an institution to make concessions on your behalf, without you second guessing them. That means permitting them to make decisions that you disagree with, because you trust that in the long term such flexibility will result in a better society for all, including yourself.

This becomes less and less true the more unrepresentative the institution. This level of trust is nonexistent in large heterogenous polities, and only existent in small polities (Singapore, Sweden, France, Canada, Australia) or homogenous polities (China).

[justin66]

> I'd argue that in a lot of US States, the distrust is not in all government, just in the central Federal government.

It's not like that kind of public opinion is uniform among the entire population of a state. Plenty of people in a state you might think of as not trusting the federal government, e.g. most states in the American south, have sizable minority populations that historically have depended heavily on the federal government's power for protection of their constitutional rights.

Not to mention, the most meaningful political differences in the United States today are between rural and and urban areas.

[bhupy]

> It's not like that kind of public opinion is uniform among the entire population of a state. Plenty of people in a state you might think of as not trusting the federal government, e.g. most states in the American south, have sizable minority populations that historically have depended heavily on the federal government's power for protection of their constitutional rights.

Yes, and like most other nation-states, minorities lose out to the majority. The question is: at what level is that acceptable? At a broad enough level, a tyranny of the majority is unacceptable, because there are no alternatives. At a low enough level, a tyranny of the majority is acceptable because it's more feasible for one to shop around. This is one of the reasons large corporate monopolies are considered bad.

> Not to mention, the most meaningful political differences in the United States today are between rural and and urban areas.

If you look at Treemaps of the US election in 2016 (weighted by population to accurately capture rural counties), there are some states where rural voters are largely on the same page as urban voters[1][2][3][4], and some where most of the state embraces a rural way of life, and hence its internal policy is better suited to that culture [5][6][7][8]. For states that are internally polarized[9][10], applying subsidiarity yet another time might be the prudent solution, but that's up to them.

Also, somewhat paradoxically, in Alaska, the urban centers typically vote like rural voters in the rest of the Union, and Alaska's rural voters vote like urban voters in the rest of the Union[11].

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[4] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[5] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[6] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[7] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[8] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[9] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[10] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_presid...

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...

[babesh]

It's turtles all the way down. You can sometimes vote with your feet (if you have the wherewithal)... but that applies to the city, county, state, nation level as well.

[justin66]

I would have thought that a race for the bottom, which is a real concept that you don't have to put in scare quotes, among the Cantons could be arrested by the citizenship and registration requirements each Canton has. For example, if too many poor are moving in to use the Canton's services, which their own Cantons refuse to provide, simply don't allow them to register.

This kind of race for the bottom in Switzerland is admittedly a rather fantastical idea, but for cultural reasons, not organizational ones, I think. Though the organizational differences are certainly big!

[bhupy]

From an organizational perspective, the United States is uniquely well setup to emulate this model. There's no need for systemic changes or amendments to the US Constitution.

The cultural challenge is to convince most Americans of this fact, and get them to embrace subsidiarity[1], as a principle.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

[justin66]

> From an organizational perspective, the United States is uniquely well setup to emulate this model. There's no need for systemic changes or amendments to the US Constitution.

Cantons (and, IIRC, municipalities) have their own citizenship rules. This is totally antithetical to the US constitution.

There's plenty that they do that we could also do, yes, although it's useful to be specific.

[bhupy]

I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear: the Cantonal citizenship rules are meant to demonstrate the degree of decentralization.

Swiss citizens (and immigrants) are free to move and reside through Cantons as they please, just like the US. In this regard, the US Constitution creates a structure of government virtually identical to that of Switzerland. If we enshrined, say, sanctuary laws in States, there would essentially be no structural difference.

Once you become a naturalized Swiss citizen in Zurich, you’re free to move to Zug, or Jura, or wherever else you please.