Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Grave_n_idle]

Note that these 'backward' low tax redneck states attract far more net domestic migration than the high tax progressive states that you fawn over. This from the progressive Atlantic

In a depressed economy, some people move to places where the rent is cheaper?

You'd have to be pretty desperate to pretend that was evidence of anything more significant than a temporary shift based on cost of living.

[Obamacult]

I love how Obamacult directly acknowledges that his big long list is a list of strawmen. (As in, they're easily refuted arguments, which is why he's refuting them without anyone actually making them.)

Maybe I should just repeat myself too:

Letting each state set their own economic policies with no federal involvement is only a non-terrible idea if that includes letting them set tariffs on imports from other states and/or issue their own currencies. (Examples: Greece and the Euro crisis; Mexico post-NAFTA and the resulting surge of emigrants to the US) So, basically turning the US into a confederation of countries rather than one country. Even then, it wouldn't be a great idea. (Economic slowdown and resulting political discord.)

Regulating trade across the entirety of a unified market, and redistributing resources to offset inevitable disparities, is a legitimate and necessary function of government. To say nothing of issues like civil rights. The South only seceded in the first place in order to continue being a bunch of asshole racists; they had nothing else to gain from it. I'll never understand how people can think that isn't a relevant point.

I love how the peanut gallery resorts to misinformation and other assorted strawman arguments to attack phantom positions that nobody has offered.

Letting each state set their own economic policies with no federal involvement is only a non-terrible idea if that includes letting them set tariffs on imports from other states and/or issue their own currencies.

Your absolute ill-informed on this point because I have stated that the Constitution remains unchanged. The Federal govt. still coins Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Indeed, you should read my post before making ill-informed arguments against them:

Fallacy #1 -- Empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the progressive, Marxist and socialist opponents of federalism because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's. Indeed, removing the federal govt. from managing the many economic issues that it now does poorly is simply a return to the 19th century and early 20th century political and economic Constitutional framework -- certainly not a return to the failed Articles.

And this.

Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society

[Grave_n_idle]

I love how the peanut gallery resorts to misinformation and other assorted strawman arguments to attack phantom positions that nobody has offered.

You realise that you offered the phantom positions, and then attacked them, yes?

[Obamacult]

Note that these 'backward' low tax redneck states attract far more net domestic migration than the high tax progressive states that you fawn over. This from the progressive Atlantic

In a depressed economy, some people move to places where the rent is cheaper?

You'd have to be pretty desperate to pretend that was evidence of anything more significant than a temporary shift based on cost of living.

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

[Obamacult]

I love how the peanut gallery resorts to misinformation and other assorted strawman arguments to attack phantom positions that nobody has offered.

You realise that you offered the phantom positions, and then attacked them, yes?

Wrong.

Moreover, do you realize that you have offered nothing and attacked nothing I have presented, yes ?

For example, if you can offer any shred of factual, logical or empirically supported evidence to undermine anything I have presented, save your personal opinion, then do so.

[Stanisburg]

No, I read it. You should read mine.

I said that letting the states have their own currencies would be a better idea than what you are proposing. It wouldn't be a great idea, but your idea is worse.

I'm wondering why you think the economy would be better off without an interstate highway system.

[Mavorpen]

In a depressed economy, some people move to places where the rent is cheaper?

You'd have to be pretty desperate to pretend that was evidence of anything more significant than a temporary shift based on cost of living.

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Where is this so-called correlation between higher wages and migration?

[Obamacult]

Fallacy #1 -- Empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the progressive, Marxist and socialist opponents of federalism because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's. Indeed, removing the federal govt. from managing the many economic issues that it now does poorly is simply a return to the 19th century and early 20th century political and economic Constitutional framework -- certainly not a return to the failed Articles.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

The Washington's mismangement of entitlements represents a survival level threat to the Republic.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence.

If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Moreover, when politicians assume the role of profit seeking capitalists in society, they dispense societal wealth based on political motives rather than economic realities. This framework is hardly a ticket for significant growth and improved standards of living for future generations.

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues, the Republic forestalls the collapse of all of society. Moreover, Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Indeed, the federal govt. will become an even more diligent and dependable overseer of political and civil rights when it is not corrupted by the management of trillions in wealth via tax and regulatory powers. Lastly, if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

In sum, the federal govt. would still be the arbiter of last resort, only now it would not be a player in the same game that it is a referee.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Indeed, the following list is of the nations with the highest GDP per capita -- note that virtually everyone of them are smallish states similar in size to many American states:

Listed in order by GDP (PPP) per capita

Qatar = 1.7 million
Liechtenstein = 36,000
Luxembourg = 500,000
Bermuda = 64,000
Monaco = 50,000
Singapore = 5.3 million
Jersey = 97,000
Falkland Is. = 2,500
Norway = 5.0 million
Brunei = 400,000
Hong Kong = 7.0 million
United States (1st large state listed ) = 310 million
UAE =8,264,070
Guernsey =62,431
Switzerland =8,014,000
Cayman Is. =55,456
Gibaltar =29,752
Netherlands =16,775,273
Kuwait = 3,582,054
Austria =8,458,023
Australia =22,894,306
Ireland=4,588,252
Sweden=9,551,781
Canada =35,002,447
Iceland=320,060

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

Moreover, as can be plainly seen from the threads in which this list is posted, the predominant counter-arguments from progressive, Marxists, socialists, et al are vitriol, fallacies, myth, disinformation and inane retorts devoid of a shred of factual logical and empirically supported evidence.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber who has consistently supported arguments with facts, logic and empirical evidence from peer reviewed sources, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

Fallacy #14 -- The federal govt. is impartial and effective at redistributing tax payer plunder.

This is wrong. Indeed, the federal govt. frequently dispenses money to politically important states rather then the most needy states in an effort to cultivate electoral votes. FDR did this when he presided over the Great Depression by redistributing taxpayer plunder to battleground states rather than states that most needed the funds. Moreover, by subsidizing failed policies within certain states, the Federal govt. undermines societal growth and living standards by lowering the whole to the lowest common denominator. Also, moral hazard drives bad policy within mismanaged states who know that they will likely be bailed out by the federal govt. by redistributive plunder of financially disciplined states that are managed responsibly.

[Obamacult]

No, I read it. You should read mine.

I said that letting the states have their own currencies would be a better idea than what you are proposing. It wouldn't be a great idea, but your idea is worse.

I'm wondering why you think the economy would be better off without an interstate highway system.

I didn't comment on allowing states to issue their own currencies since the Constitution does not allow for that. Nonetheless, I have read compelling arguments supporting this, but again, this is beyond the scope of this thread.

Lastly, I'm wondering why you think that states can't or wouldn't build an interstate highway system that is advantageous to all states?

Indeed, building a highway across state lines is not some monumental feat that requires some bureaucrat in Washington to manage.

But you should pursue whether individual state currencies are advantageous -- indeed, we have something similar with Visa, Master Card, Discover, American Express, etc.

[Grave_n_idle]

In a depressed economy, some people move to places where the rent is cheaper?

You'd have to be pretty desperate to pretend that was evidence of anything more significant than a temporary shift based on cost of living.

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low.

Of course they will. If you've got a little bit of money, and you can live a year in New York City, or five years in Franklin, North Carolina - you might well choose to weather the storm in North Carolina. Even if the job prospects there are terrible.

It's not even new - workers have been migrating like this, for this reason, for pretty much all of America's history. It's embarrassing that you don't even know this.

[Suicune]

Having fifty states is wasteful.

[YellowApple]

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Where is this so-called correlation between higher wages and migration?

I actually didn't realize Wyoming's average salary is that high. Interesting.

[Grave_n_idle]

You realise that you offered the phantom positions, and then attacked them, yes?

Wrong.

Welcome to the internet:

"The following list identifies the expected fallacies and myths from the Left and my response to the expected misinformation/disinformation from progressives on this issue. "

Your words have permanence, here.

Don't lie. You'll be caught.

[Mavorpen]

Where is this so-called correlation between higher wages and migration?

I actually didn't realize Wyoming's average salary is that high. Interesting.

Yeah. When you compare it to domestic migration, there's pretty much no correlation.

[Obamacult]

Wrong, citizens won't migrate to a region or state that has lower costs if the income opportunities are similarly low. I'll try to make this easy, people move to regions and states that offer them a higher standard of living irrespective of the costs of living or wage rates. It is a combination or ratio of wages/cost of living that determine migration trends.

Where is this so-called correlation between higher wages and migration?

People move to regions or states because the standards of living are higher relative to the costs of living.

All things being equal, no rational actor will move to a state in which the standards of living are lower or the costs of living are higher compared to the state they are currently living in.

Moreover, your graphic is production occupations -- hence, I can tell you that Michigan has high production wages, but with few job openings. Moreover, Connecticut also has high wage rates and with it declining population. In contrast, Wyoming has strong population growth and high wages -- this is probably a function of an under supply of production workers. I would suspect that North Dakota would have higher wage rates than most other states today and at the same time it is one of the fastest growing states.

In sum, high wage, high population growth is a function of a growing economy that has a shortage of labor. In contrast, high wage, low population growth states are indicative of low growth, high tax, pro-union policies. Indeed, the eight of the ten fastest growing states are right to work states.

And ten out of ten of the states with the worse domestic migration rates are ALL forced union states (with the exception of Michigan which has recently changed and hence still considered a forced union state) !!!!

[Obamacult]

Wrong.

Welcome to the internet:

"The following list identifies the expected fallacies and myths from the Left and my response to the expected misinformation/disinformation from progressives on this issue. "

Your words have permanence, here.

Don't lie. You'll be caught.

Bring it dude.

Because you are starting to bore me.

[Grave_n_idle]

Welcome to the internet:



Your words have permanence, here.

Don't lie. You'll be caught.

Bring it dude.

I've done what I needed to do - I've shown where you admit you've identified a list of arguments you wish had been made rather than ones that had been made, and then posted your 'responses' to them.

You can continue the charade, but your denial of something right there in black and white isn't convincing anyone.

[Lunalia]

No.

However, I think that federal government members who outright admit that they are putting other interests above the interests of the nation should receive some form of corporal punishment so they cannot commit this crime twice. (*points at the people who said they'd happily steer the country off the fiscal cliff to mess with Obama*). I think if there was more..... incentive... to actually do their jobs rather than stall for publicity, they would do their jobs. And corporal punishment for corrupt politicians would certainly decrease the number of corrupt politicians.

Edit for explanation of my reasons:
It may be impossible for people to move to other states with "preferable" healthcare, retirement policies, and education, depending on their occupation. Some occupations are welcome in all locations, but others may be forced to live in certain states because that is where their businesses are. Silicon Valley is where most computer innovations come from. Someone in the computer engineering field would be essentially forced to live there, whether or not they wanted to live there. Are you really going to force someone to choose between living in a state with horrible (in their opinion) healthcare, or education, or infrastructure and having a job that they love or living in a state with ideal healthcare, infrastructure, and education, with a job they despise?

[Obamacult]

And what about economic issues that involve trade between multiple states? Like, you know, virtually the entire national economy does at this point? Are you under the mistaken impression that Wisonsin dairy farmers sell most of their products within Wisconsin, or that Microsoft sells most of its products in Washington?

If what happens in Wisconsin affects the availability or price of milk in Colorado, then people in Colorado have an interest in the economic policies that influence Wisconsin's agricultural production. Yet Colorado voters don't have representation in the Wisconsin state legislature.

Damn. If only someone had thought about this problem when the Constitution was written. They could have established a way to regulate the economy on a national level.

Oh, wait, they did. There's an article in the Constitution that says the federal government is supposed to regulate commerce between the states.

The Fed govt. supports and facilitates interstate commerce without preference to any state. It simply insures that commerce can proceed within a peaceful, free and voluntary marketplace. indeed, if Wisconsin farmers can sell milk at a lower price to Colorado residents than Colorado farmers, so be it. The consumers in Colorado will experience higher standards of living because they can get desired goods and services at a lower price.

The federal govt. only needs to intervene when a law is broken. And fortunately, providing quality goods and services at lower prices than your competitor in a free, voluntary and peaceful marketplace is only a crime in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Soviet Union, etc.

[Obamacult]

Bring it dude.

I've done what I needed to do - I've shown where you admit you've identified a list of arguments you wish had been made rather than ones that had been made, and then posted your 'responses' to them.

You can continue the charade, but your denial of something right there in black and white isn't convincing anyone.

It is a work in progress dude. Note that I haven't removed a single tenet since I began this thread.

Moreover, neither you or any other detractor has offered anything refuting what I have presented. Unless you consider inane retorts and personal opinion a 'refutation'.

But if this is the best you can offer -- you only serve to mildly amuse me and further demonstrate your complete inability to refute or undermine anything I have offered.

[Mavorpen]

Where is this so-called correlation between higher wages and migration?

People move to regions or states because the standards of living are higher relative to the costs of living.

All things being equal, no rational actor will move to a state in which the standards of living are lower or the costs of living are higher compared to the state they are currently living in.

Moreover, your graphic is production occupations -- hence, I can tell you that Michigan has high production wages, but with few job openings. Moreover, Connecticut also has high wage rates and with it declining population. In contrast, Wyoming has strong population growth and high wages -- this is probably a function of an under supply of production workers. I would suspect that North Dakota would have higher wage rates than most other states today and at the same time it is one of the fastest growing states.

In sum, high wage, high population growth is a function of a growing economy that has a shortage of labor. In contrast, high wage, low population growth states are indicative of low growth, high tax, pro-union policies. Indeed, the eight of the ten fastest growing states are right to work states.

And ten out of ten of the states with the worse domestic migration rates are ALL forced union states (with the exception of Michigan which has recently changed and hence still considered a forced union state) !!!!

Ah, so you're backtracking. I see you haven't changed.

[YellowApple]

Silicon Valley is where most computer innovations come from.

Reno, NV might be able to siphon off some of that innovation; there have been quite a few tech startups in Reno that seem to be doing quite alright due to the lower business taxes and property costs, as well as the low supply and modest demand of IT products and services in Reno and the surrounding areas. I'm even considering starting up a web-based business or two for a bit of side money, and Reno's probably going to be where I house the servers.

[Stanisburg]

No, I read it. You should read mine.

I said that letting the states have their own currencies would be a better idea than what you are proposing. It wouldn't be a great idea, but your idea is worse.

I'm wondering why you think the economy would be better off without an interstate highway system.

I didn't comment on allowing states to issue their own currencies since the Constitution does not allow for that. Nonetheless, I have read compelling arguments supporting this, but again, this is beyond the scope of this thread.

Lastly, I'm wondering why you think that states can't or wouldn't build an interstate highway.system that is advantageous to all states?

Indeed, building a highway across state lines is not some monumental feat that requires some bureaucrat in Washington to manage.

But you should pursue whether individual state currencies are advantageous -- indeed, we have. something similar with Visa, Master Card, Discover, American Express, etc.

You run a business in Wisconsin that ships products to North Dakota. Minnesota elects a radical environmentalist governor who decides to replace all of the highways in the state with bike paths.

Does this affect your business? Are you pissed about it? Well, tough shit. You live and vote in Wisconsin. STATES' RIGHTS!

[Obamacult]

No.

However, I think that federal government members who outright admit that they are putting other interests above the interests of the nation should receive some form of corporal punishment so they cannot commit this crime twice. (*points at the people who said they'd happily steer the country off the fiscal cliff to mess with Obama*). I think if there was more..... incentive... to actually do their jobs rather than stall for publicity, they would do their jobs. And corporal punishment for corrupt politicians would certainly decrease the number of corrupt politicians.

Edit for explanation of my reasons:
It may be impossible for people to move to other states with "preferable" healthcare, retirement policies, and education, depending on their occupation. Some occupations are welcome in all locations, but others may be forced to live in certain states because that is where their businesses are. Silicon Valley is where most computer innovations come from. Someone in the computer engineering field would be essentially forced to live there, whether or not they wanted to live there. Are you really going to force someone to choose between living in a state with horrible (in their opinion) healthcare, or education, or infrastructure and having a job that they love or living in a state with ideal healthcare, infrastructure, and education, with a job they despise?

I think Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Steve Case, Larry Page, et al would have an answer for this phantom dilemma.

Competition.

Moreover, California is already losing businesses and high tech jobs to other states due to confiscatory tax policy, higher costs of doing business and lower standards of living.

---

IN sum, the beauty of the federal system is that it is far easier for businesses and talent to migrate within the USA than to migrate to another nation altogether.

Source:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002818-the-export-business-california-people-and-jobs?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Newgeography+%28Newgeography.com+-+Economic%2C+demographic%2C+and+political+commentary+about+places%2

[Mavorpen]

I'll try again since I didn't get a real answer last time. What is the correlation between income and migration?