[iamnothere]

> within a generation we have two separate countries and war

Or do we? Some states don’t seem to want these things, or at least that’s what their representatives say. So let them experiment. My guess is the loss of benefits will outweigh the meager tax savings, but there may be a couple of states that are fine with the tradeoff. As long as people can move freely, it should be a self-correcting problem.

The problem with centralization is that it creates an all-or-nothing battle for federal control. Right now the people winning that battle don’t seem to share your vision for social programs. Could be an issue, especially with ongoing gerrymandering efforts!

In a big country with strongly polarized political opinions, federalism is the best way to fight this sort of political capture and the associated back-and-forth escalation. As tensions boil over, the only other option that can maintain a semblance of order is brutal repression.

[dmd]

> as long as people can move freely

But they won’t be able to. We’ve already seen this attempted (e.g. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/pressroom/first-in-t... ) and if we went in that direction that’s the kind of thing that would happen.

[iamnothere]

I’m OK with having a small but well-armed federal agency to ensure freedom of movement if that’s what it takes.

[dmd]

Great! You’ve just put the final piece in place for the civil war.

[iamnothere]

I disagree, and the status quo is taking us in that direction regardless.