Quote:
Originally Posted by Slighted
because in reality the more localized you get the more whackjob you get. that form of government only made sense before modern times. it's a poor relic of a bygone era. there's no reason for the law to be different in every one of the 8 states i can drive across in one day.
also what power does my local government have vs walmart price gouging me? that's just dumb. why should one state treat an internet company differently than another? how do you reconcile that with capitalism or the commerce clause?
Nice that you use Walmart, which keeps your prices actually down, in an ultra competitive sector, as an example of price gouging, means you really have a grasp of the topic.
Why should a sovereign entity reach a different decision on tradeoff considerations than a fellow one elsewhere....
Because it represents different people with different preferences.
The reason for laws to be different in different places (when it happens) is for the law to represent the actual will of the actual people, or you know, what they call actual democracy.
It also allows competing models to coexist in otherwise similar places, so that people can check the different results and make better decisions. And they can move where their preferences are the law, instead of being violently binded to the will of the national majority, which if they find far enough from theirs, means living all your life in a country that doesn't represent you at all.
Having everything from a radical right to a radical left to everything in between in the 50 states allows better matching of people with their preferences.
Commerce clause has been abused forever to justify federal power overreach toward a centralist model which is inimical at its core with the federal constitution. And to freedom for the reasons state above.
With CC abuse you can violently impose your preferences everywhere, there is no escape. So others can live differently proving it works better.
Unsurprisingly you bring it out here as well.
But we know why want want rules (and taxation and welfare) to be national: because you know under regulated states will attract the rich, the productive, the people you want to tax to pay for what you care about, and if they have an escape route elsewhere you can't regulate at the state level as much as you want, because companies will all flee and you will be left ruling over an economic desert.