Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
But what if, for example, the federal government shuttered the Department of Education and stopped the spigot of education funding? Let's say to make it even simpler there was no change in law -- the federal government still claimed the power to regulate education, but chose not to.
Then, Mississippi could choose not to have any public schools at all, if they didn't want to pay for them. Or they could choose to devolve it to the counties. They still could not set up segregated schools -- that violates the Constitution no matter what.
Now imagine the same thing across everything, from worker safety to the FDA.
But New York could (and would) still have health and safety regulations that mandated base levels for any food being brought into and/or sold within the state. So companies operating in Mississippi would still have to pass those tests to sell anything in NY. Companies that incurred those costs would lobby Mississippi to adopt those regulations so they didn't lose MS business to the laissez-faire poison pushers. Companies would try to set up dummy testers with fake results, but the enlightened states would suss them out and not accept their products.
In other words, all the same functions that used to happen at the federal level would be replicated at the state level, with the same (or greater) tax burden now imposed by state taxes, and anybody who didn't want to play would become, literally, a failed state. It would be the same as now, only people couldn't blame the federal government anymore. The states would gradually all conform to regulatory structures or inexorably fall behind and become North Mexico.
It would be brutally inefficient, but it would be worth it to make certain states put up or shut up.
Different issue. Civil rights are guaranteed under the Constitution; a state can't violate those.
But what if, for example, the federal government shuttered the Department of Education and stopped the spigot of education funding? Let's say to make it even simpler there was no change in law -- the federal government still claimed the power to regulate education, but chose not to.
Then, Mississippi could choose not to have any public schools at all, if they didn't want to pay for them. Or they could choose to devolve it to the counties. They still could not set up segregated schools -- that violates the Constitution no matter what.
Now imagine the same thing across everything, from worker safety to the FDA.
But New York could (and would) still have health and safety regulations that mandated base levels for any food being brought into and/or sold within the state. So companies operating in Mississippi would still have to pass those tests to sell anything in NY. Companies that incurred those costs would lobby Mississippi to adopt those regulations so they didn't lose MS business to the laissez-faire poison pushers. Companies would try to set up dummy testers with fake results, but the enlightened states would suss them out and not accept their products.
In other words, all the same functions that used to happen at the federal level would be replicated at the state level, with the same (or greater) tax burden now imposed by state taxes, and anybody who didn't want to play would become, literally, a failed state. It would be the same as now, only people couldn't blame the federal government anymore. The states would gradually all conform to regulatory structures or inexorably fall behind and become North Mexico.
It would be brutally inefficient, but it would be worth it to make certain states put up or shut up.
Last edited:
.
