Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Libertarian California]

As much as I love state's rights, and Constitutionally-limited government, there is a limit. Heavily downsizing the Federal government as you're advocating would be disastrous, as the states of California, Texas, and New York would outright dominate the rest of the country.

This argument is defeated because what you fear is what we now have on a grand scale!

A massive over dominate federal government that has become too big to fail and yet is experiencing disastrous long term debt that will ultimately destroy the Republic if not addressed.

The alternative is that if a state government becomes too oppressive, it is far easier for people to move to the next state, then to immigrate to another nation.

It's kind of hard to hop states when your three choices are:

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)
Texas (Rick Perry ruling unrestrained. Likely to be at war with Mexico)
New York (aka, Northeastern megapolis) (Mayor Bloomberg, without the US Constitution, is able to impede on the personal lives of his citizens even more)

[Genivaria]

This argument is defeated because what you fear is what we now have on a grand scale!

A massive over dominate federal government that has become too big to fail and yet is experiencing disastrous long term debt that will ultimately destroy the Republic if not addressed.

The alternative is that if a state government becomes too oppressive, it is far easier for people to move to the next state, then to immigrate to another nation.

It's kind of hard to hop states when your three choices are:

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)
Texas (Rick Perry ruling unrestrained. Likely to be at war with Mexico)
New York (aka, Northeastern megapolis) (Mayor Bloomberg, without the US Constitution, is able to impede on the personal lives of his citizens even more)

Yo-HAHAHA-Your joking right? You CAN'T be serious!

[Idaho Conservatives]

It's kind of hard to hop states when your three choices are:

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)
Texas (Rick Perry ruling unrestrained. Likely to be at war with Mexico)
New York (aka, Northeastern megapolis) (Mayor Bloomberg, without the US Constitution, is able to impede on the personal lives of his citizens even more)

Texas declaring war on Mexico? What the fuck?

[Libertarian California]

It's kind of hard to hop states when your three choices are:

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)
Texas (Rick Perry ruling unrestrained. Likely to be at war with Mexico)
New York (aka, Northeastern megapolis) (Mayor Bloomberg, without the US Constitution, is able to impede on the personal lives of his citizens even more)

Yo-HAHAHA-Your joking right? You CAN'T be serious!

Read my earlier posts, and this will make sense. I pointed out that if the Federal Government was dissolved, California, Texas, and New York would split the country amongst themselves. I then gave a bunch of hypothetical scenarios, and explaining why that is bad.

[Libertarian California]

It's kind of hard to hop states when your three choices are:

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)
Texas (Rick Perry ruling unrestrained. Likely to be at war with Mexico)
New York (aka, Northeastern megapolis) (Mayor Bloomberg, without the US Constitution, is able to impede on the personal lives of his citizens even more)

Texas declaring war on Mexico? What the fuck?

It's something Rick Perry would do in the new Confederate Republic of Texas.

[Condunum]

Yo-HAHAHA-Your joking right? You CAN'T be serious!

Read my earlier posts, and this will make sense. I pointed out that if the Federal Government was dissolved, California, Texas, and New York would split the country amongst themselves. I then gave a bunch of hypothetical scenarios, and explaining why that is bad.

Mexico does not have the ability to successfully annex California. It has a hard enough time keeping control of it's own country.

[Idaho Conservatives]

Texas declaring war on Mexico? What the fuck?

It's something Rick Perry would do in the new Confederate Republic of Texas.

If you say so...

[Trotskylvania]

This argument is defeated because what you fear is what we now have on a grand scale!

A massive over dominate federal government that has become too big to fail and yet is experiencing disastrous long term debt that will ultimately destroy the Republic if not addressed.

The alternative is that if a state government becomes too oppressive, it is far easier for people to move to the next state, then to immigrate to another nation.

It's kind of hard to hop states when your three choices are:

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)
Texas (Rick Perry ruling unrestrained. Likely to be at war with Mexico)
New York (aka, Northeastern megapolis) (Mayor Bloomberg, without the US Constitution, is able to impede on the personal lives of his citizens even more)

This is the kind of layman's approach to geopolitics that makes 90 percent of speculative fiction unbearable.

[AiliailiA]

Lulz. Go report me. Do it, do it.

Reported. Bluff called.

Yeah, but then you want to destroy the union, which makes you anything but American.

So, which one are you working for? Cuba? China? North Korea?

Due to the permanent demographic changes taking place in the United States due to the breeding and invading latinos, who are more loyal to tyrannical collectivist ALBA than to pro-freedom NATO, the U.S.'s far-sighted foreign policy which serves to defend freedom will increasingly decline, as it has been declining. Already, Obama has cancelled the missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland; Obama has refused to arm the Free Syrian Army to fight against the extreme tyranny of the Assad dictatorship; and Obama has likewise refused to make any commitment to preventative strikes against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. The only way to preserve the U.S.'s far-sighted pro-freedom foreign policy (which is standing in the way of the authoritarian collectivist bloc's ambitions) is for the pro-freedom Americans to secede from the collectivists and determine our own foreign policy.

So, individual States backing foreign revolutions ... or supporting the oppressive governments opposed to them, if that's in their commercial interests instead (eg oil or navigation routes).

Your demonization of the Federal government has led you to the naive conclusion that States are idealistic and enlightened of their own interests. When without the Federal government they would be, precisely, nations. Like any nation, their interests would conflict with that of other nations. Fences would be built on the borders of states. Militaries would be built up, and from time to time there would be war. The whole continent of North America could be drawn into war with modern weapons, if not nuclear weapons.

Ask anyone whose parents or grandparents lived in Europe during WW2, if that sounds like a good idea.

It is therefore in the interest of agents of the authoritarian collectivist bloc to convince pro-freedom Americans to not attain their own self-determination.

Who are these "authoritarian collectivists"? Do you mean the UN or the EU? The IMF perhaps?

Be specific. You're essentially accusing Obama (and btw Norstal) of treason to the US. It sounds kind of paranoid. Name the "authoritarian collectivists".

The term 'American' means more than just the arbitrary borders that one is born within; anyone can be born within arbitrary national borders, including tyrannical collectivists like Norstal, who are becoming increasingly common and powerful within these borders, as Norstal is well aware. The term 'American' has a greater, historical meaning- it refers to people who support the ideals of freedom and self-determination- the sort of people who founded this country.

Waffle. The First Americans weren't given self-determination ... they were barely given pity. And as to freedom, what was with bringing slaves into the country? What was with keeping people as slaves their whole life, just because their parents were black?

Norstal, of course, is well aware of that; he is just stating the opposite of the truth about me again, for the purpose of being disruptive.

Norstal insulted your motives by implying that you work for non-American interests. That was pretty low imo, but it was your mistake to be goaded into such pompous and bigoted patriotism in reply.

And the name you called him, immediately after calling a Mod to look at the thread? That was just a big mistake.

[Grenartia]

1. Source?

1. spoiler

2. No. But it is time to downsize large corporations, specifically those that are "too big to fail"

2A.Wrong, there is far less need to downsize large corporations because within a free society 99% ultimately fail due to competition. 2B. IN contrast, government is a coercive monopoly in which competition and free choice is denied by force of arms.

Unless, you consider your meaningless vote that represents 1/120 millionth of the electoral every 4 years for the lesser of two evils as a 'choice'.

3. If you could find a way for the states to be able to pay for those things without fucking people over even more than you claim the federal government is doing. I doubt you could, though.

3A. Of course government will attempt to screw the citizenry every chance it gets, but the obvious premise behind decentralization and competition is that the citizenry will have more choices and hence bad actors (the Federal government) will not have the benefit of monopoly power. 3B. Moreover, it is far easier to relocate within the United States then it is to leave altogether if your state becomes corrupted, wasteful or inefficient beyond what is tolerable.

4. Proof? What about the various southern states prior to the Civil Rights movement? They could hardly be considered "best".

4A. You don't have to move there. If you prefer big government than presumably you can find a state that suits your needs. Moreover, there will be 50 different and competing societal experiments from which to choose sound policy.

4B. Indeed, it is telling and noteworthy that only those on the Left reject free choice and competition. Of course, we know why -- it is obvious that failed systems must hide behind monopolistic and coercive policies.

Indeed, the MOther of All Monopolies is the federal government.

4C.Moreover, it is irrational that statists that fear a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry while fawning over the most coercive and wasteful monopoly in history -- the Federal government -- more so because unlike a private sector monopoly, this one has all the guns and gavels from which to solidfy its self-serving hold on power.

5. Or a greater threat by not having restrictions from the federal government.

5. The federal government would still have all the guns and gavels and remain the unchecked power in the United States -- the only difference is that it would not corrupt this power by injecting itself into the economic 'game' by excessive taxation, regulation and participation in economic endeavors best left to the state that is closer to the people.

6. Assuming, of course, that each state will go its own way, instead of groups of several of them having more or less the same system, which is more likely based on historical observations.

6. Then why do you support a huge broken federal government that represents this problem on a grand scale ???

hence, it is illogical to reject a policy because it is too centralized when the current system is far worse.

7. Corrupt policies? Such as...?

7A. Most of the corruption,waste and inefficiency in the USA is from politicians engage in a destructive quid pro quo of redistribution of plunder to favored constituents and campaign contributors for preferential tax and regulatory policy.

This is why an increase in govt spending results in less growth.

[img=http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Federal-Spending-Economic-Growth-Chart-11.jpg]Do government stimulus programs really work [/img]

Moreover, the government itself (hardly a non-biased source) cites over $115,000,000,000 in improper payments alone -- not including other forms of government waste, unintended consequences and opportunity costs.

Source: http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588228.pdf

7B.Also, government engages in waste as a result of the compliance cost of tens of thousands of Federal regulations, many which conflict and overlap state and local rules that even the leftwing Huffpo saw fit to report:

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-n ... 34855.html

8. $100 trillion? Is there even that much money in the world? IIRC, we have 25% of the world's GDP, and our GDP is $14 trillion. Last time I checked, 14*4 =/= 100.

8. No there probably isn't, this is the unfunded debt that the US government owes to entitlement programs that Americans have been paying into most of their lives in which they will see only a fraction of this contribution in the form of significantly reduced benefits and services.

9. Unless, of course, there are no adjacent states with differing policies, assuming one even has the money to move to a different state.

9. Competition will incentives sound policies from state governments designed to attract capital and labor which pay the bills. Nonetheless, your argument actually supports my hypothesis since migration from individual states in the Union is far easier to undertake than moving out of the country entirely.

10. Source on that claim about the federal government, por favor.

10. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely -- Acton

Do you discount this truth?

Moreover, to reject empowering individual states in favor of a monolithic behemoth federal government is to remove competition and free choice to the people. This tenet doesn't require a 'source' -- it is self-evident that truth is far more preferable to a monopoly status that is forced on the citizenry by coercive means as government now represents.

11. HOWEVER, things like civil rights should NOT be left to the states, because some states will inevitably fuck over minorities (to the point that many will not be able to move away, as you'd probably tell me they should do). What works with regards to civil rights in one state will work in another.

11A. True, that is why the Constitution, Bill of Rights are the law of the land that trumps all state law. Moreover, the federal government is the mechanism by which these civil and political rights are insured.

11B. However, there are no economic rights today -- essentially the Federal government has become the most prolific thief in the history of the world. Plundering fair gotten societal wealth simply because a simple majority of a fraction of the registered voters that further represent a fraction of the population vote for politicians to pass laws that plunder private wealth for personal gain.

This is tyranny of the majority and it should not be practiced to steal the civil, political or economic rights of the individual so some politician can remain in power by buying votes with redistributive policies.

The sad joke is that these policies actually undermine the very living standards of the very people that they purport to assist -- case in point poverty is at decades high levels despite trillions in social spending.

12. By having less wealth to distribute, they will also inevitably not be able to maintain various necessities, such as education, roads, etc.

12. This is not the case with the myriad small prosperous liberal democracies that dot the geopolitical landscape and do quite well in nation-states that number less citizens in many states:

Indeed 14 of the 15 nation-states with the highest GDP per capita (PPP) are all nations that have populations lower than California and Texas. And most of these nations have populations around the average for an American states (<10 million).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... y_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Hence, it is absurd to make the argument that small sized jurisdictions are incapable of generating high levels of growth and increased living standards.

1. All that tells me is the debt. Not how the money was spent.

2A. Source?

2B. Said monopoly is owned by everybody. Thus, it represents everybody's interests.

3A. Using your logic, all that would do, however, is give the states that monopoly.

3B. No, not everybody is able to move away to a state they like better, besides, there are certain aspects of a state's culture, or climate, or physical environment that somebody may like and not be able to enjoy in another state. I live in the anti-LGBT hellhole of Tennessee, for instance. Sure, I'd move to a more LGBT-friendly state if I could. But I can't. Because I have NO MONEY to move halfway across the country. Neither do I desire to live in a colder state (hell, compared to my previous residence of Louisiana, TN is the fucking North Pole), nor one that has a constant geological Sword of Damocles hanging over it. I really fucking miss going to Mardi Gras, and fishing on the bayou, but I can't move back to Louisiana, either, namely due to, again my LACK OF MONEY, and the fact that its also very anti-LGBT (though admittedly less so than Tennessee).

4A. And if you were born there? Or dragged there by your parents?

4B. Now you're pulling shit out of your ass.

4C. You say statist like you don't support ANY government. And yet you seem to love state government so much. The problem, though, to address your point, is that private-sector monopolies DON'T represent everybody. There is always internal competition within a democratically elected government. Besides, a government, BY DEFINITION, must have a monopoly on power. If a government did not have any internal competition, then I would indeed agree with you that it is bad like private sector monopolies. But our government DOES, and is therefore, not comparable to corporate monopolies.

5. Taxes are payments for the services government provides. Things like roads, the post service, protection from hostile forces both inside and outside our borders, education, assistance for the needy, NASA, etc. These things are ALL necessities, and must be paid for. Regulation is a GOOD THING. Regulation is what allows you to pick up a pound of beef at your local grocery store, cook it, eat it, and not worry about whether or not you'll get sick from it. And source on the government's "participation in economic endeavors"?

6. Because, historically, the federal government has enforced a system that is best. The federal government forced ALL the states to abolish slavery. The federal government forced ALL the states to legalize interracial marriage. The federal government forced ALL the states to integrate and stop treating black people like second class citizens. And the federal government forced ALL the states to stop enforcing their sodomy laws.

Also, I never said anything about 'too much centralization'. Nice strawman, though.

7A. Then go after the corruption and waste and make deals like that illegal. The federal government, a few glitches aside, is fine the way it is. Gutting the federal government to fix a few issues, like you're suggesting we do, is like cutting off your arm because you have a broken hand.

7B. From your source:

The survey revealed which types of regulations affect manufacturers the most:

• Worker Health and Safety regulations, including OSHA, accounted for one-third the cost of compliance
• Regulations governing employee benefits ranked second, making up 27% of the cost of compliance
• Civil rights, labor standards, and labor-management relations regulations each made up about 10% of the cost of compliance

Boohoo. Corporations are having to pay to comply with commonsense regulations that prevent workplace accidents, provide a decent standard of living for employees, and to not discriminate while hiring.

Regulations are in place to PREVENT people from fucking each other over. Anybody who complains about them can ONLY want to fuck other people over. They deserve no sympathy.

8. If there isn't that much money in the world then its impossible for somebody to owe that much.

9. No it doesn't, as I said, because there are too many people who would be negatively affected and UNABLE to leave. Or do you also believe that all the people in New Orleans post-Katrina actually wanted to stay for the storm?

10. I won't take it as a valid source for the claim you made about the federal government having a "if you don't like it, then leave" policy (which is ironically the same policy you're pushing for).

11A. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn't stop slavery, didn't stop segregation in the South, and didn't stop the sodomy laws.

11B. I'd like a source for every single one of those claims.

12. Lets break down this list.

3 of those countries on the list are in the Middle East. Obviously their citizens are going to be filthy fucking rich, as they're almost literally swimming in one of the most expensive liquids on Earth.

Another, Brunei, a Southeast Asian country, ALSO makes most of its GDP through petroleum.

The US falls in at #8. Obviously, the federal government's doing a somewhat decent job if we're #8.

Then you have the 3 Scandinavian countries, countries with lots of regulations and taxes (how the fuck are they high on this list if regulations and taxes are bad things?).

Next we have Singapore, which makes most of its money because it has the 5th largest port in the world (and most of its small landmass is a fucking city).

Finally, we have Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Austria. All known for the financial industry. Essentially, they're all giant banks.

So some states (namely the coastal ones, and ones with access to various natural resources) will certainly be better off than others. But many other states will be shitholes, because they have next to nothing (I'm thinking namely AZ, KS, ND, SD, MT, ID, UT,etc.) And, as I keep saying to you, a lot of people in those states will be stuck there, because they can't afford to move away.

[Norstal]

Lulz. Go report me. Do it, do it.

Reported. Bluff called.

Yeah, but then you want to destroy the union, which makes you anything but American.

So, which one are you working for? Cuba? China? North Korea?

Due to the permanent demographic changes taking place in the United States due to the breeding and invading latinos, who are more loyal to tyrannical collectivist ALBA than to pro-freedom NATO, the U.S.'s far-sighted foreign policy which serves to defend freedom will increasingly decline, as it has been declining. Already, Obama has cancelled the missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland; Obama has refused to arm the Free Syrian Army to fight against the extreme tyranny of the Assad dictatorship; and Obama has likewise refused to make any commitment to preventative strikes against Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. The only way to preserve the U.S.'s far-sighted pro-freedom foreign policy (which is standing in the way of the authoritarian collectivist bloc's ambitions) is for the pro-freedom Americans to secede from the collectivists and determine our own foreign policy. It is therefore in the interest of agents of the authoritarian collectivist bloc to convince pro-freedom Americans to not attain their own self-determination.

The term 'American' means more than just the arbitrary borders that one is born within; anyone can be born within arbitrary national borders, including tyrannical collectivists like Norstal, who are becoming increasingly common and powerful within these borders, as Norstal is well aware. The term 'American' has a greater, historical meaning- it refers to people who support the ideals of freedom and self-determination- the sort of people who founded this country. Norstal, of course, is well aware of that; he is just stating the opposite of the truth about me again, for the purpose of being disruptive.

Yeah, but you want to destroy the Union.

You realize how un-American that is, right? You realize how advocating the destruction of America would make her enemies happy right? Look, I understand that your handlers might not like it if you reveal your identity, but I assure you that you Canadians will never take our place as the last superpower on this planet.

[Yankee Empire]

I forgot to add that only thoughtful responses from independent thinking and objective contributors motivated to answer the question or add knowledge to the subject are requested.

"Only answer if you agree with me, my bubble of perfection must not be burst!"

Also no Federal is good.

[Mavorpen]

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)

California has a balanced budget.

So why the fuck does this matter?

[Frisivisia]

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)

California has a balanced budget.

So why the fuck does this matter?

Because of the evil debt that is going to open up a sinkhole and eat our children.

[Kleomentia]

Nope.

[Fishyland]

no. also, your reasons for this are simply opinions without anything being used to back them up.

[Chinese Regions]

Oh look, another Chinese propagandist in our forum. Sure is a lot of them in here these days.

I shall remind you that trolling by stating the polar opposite of the truth like that is a violation of the forum rules. But then, by your post count and join date, I conclude that you are already well aware of that, and chose to break the rules anyway.

China, of course, both has collectivist ideology and is allied to ALBA, and, like all authoritarian collectivist bloc nations (Russia, Belarus, China, North Korea, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador), it is in their interest for the pro-freedom peoples of the United States to continue to have their self-determination suppressed by the collectivists.

Authoritarian, sure. Collectivist? Far from it.

[Dilange]

This argument is defeated because what you fear is what we now have on a grand scale!

A massive over dominate federal government that has become too big to fail and yet is experiencing disastrous long term debt that will ultimately destroy the Republic if not addressed.

The alternative is that if a state government becomes too oppressive, it is far easier for people to move to the next state, then to immigrate to another nation.

It's kind of hard to hop states when your three choices are:

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)
Texas (Rick Perry ruling unrestrained. Likely to be at war with Mexico)
New York (aka, Northeastern megapolis) (Mayor Bloomberg, without the US Constitution, is able to impede on the personal lives of his citizens even more)

Each of those three states would become different nations. Like split into multiple nations.

[Jenrak]

With respect to externalities -- the federal government is still the legal arbiter of last resort. Hence, when another state transgresses against its neighbor -- the same legal mechanisms that are in place today would exist tomorrow -- the only difference being with state governments managing the social/economic functions that the federal government mismanages today.

With respect to economies of scale -- reality and empirical evidence refutes this strawman argument against decentralization. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, 75% of the richest twenty nations are from nation-states that possess populations that are typical of those in an average American state. Indeed, many of these states closely resemble the status of an American state in which their defense is provided by a larger federal authority:

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
Germany (2nd large state listed) = 81 million

In addition, economies of scale would still exist in the private sector since the federal government would continue to guarantee unrestricted commerce between states as it has since the Constitution was ratified. Lastly, what is the advantage of economies of scale when the enterprise that enjoys this advantage has obtained it, not by satisfying consumer preferences in a free, voluntary and competitive market, but by coercion?

Also, this fantasy notion that economies of scale is justification for a massive 'one-size fits all' and 'one solution fits all' federal government intrusion into responsibilities best left to the states or civil society --- there exists a counter-argument that government that enjoys economies of scale also suffers from the dangers of being 'too big to fail'.

Ponder that.

With respect to opportunity costs -- These costs support my hypothesis that the federal government be removed from mismanaging economic and social issues better managed at the state level or by civil society.

How so?

The opportunity costs of continuing to allow the federal government to mismanage health care, social security and myriad other economic/social issues represents a survival level threat to the Republic in the form of $16,000,000,000,000 or increasingly expanding debt that will consume over $400,000,000,000 in interest payments that could have been used to train and hire millions of teachers and doctor, thousands of schools and hospitals.

How is that for opportunity costs?

Moreover, the two programs that consume the most taxpayer wealth are government managed health care and social security -- both of which are taking money out of the general fund. In addition, the notion that the social security trust fund makes this entitlement solvent is ridiculous considering that they're absolutely no tangible assets in this fund other then the faith and credit of a government that faces over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt.



Sources:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... xpense.htm

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... population

Re: Externalities - I'm uncertain what you mean by these transgressions. Can you provide a specific example?

Re: Economies of Scale - I believe you're inserting things into my mouth. How would a specific state finance its own credit problems in the case of a credit crisis when the individual cost of every dollar is marginalized by allowing a single actor to provide those bonds? If a state is under financial stress and must subsidize a central industry, how will it do so without a federal body to disseminate costs over time and geography? I'm not talking about corporations in a private sector (which is a different topic altogether), so my apologies if there was a misunderstanding.

Re: Opportunity Cost - Okay, but you're assuming that every state is capable of funding its internal structure at efficiency equal or greater than current costs. Is that really the case?

Note that I'm not trying to disprove you or anything, but I'm curious as to how precisely these things would be solved. Not even getting into potential collusion, amalgamation, and variation in standards setting (which are also wacky problems that could arise), the fact of the matter is that not all states perform equally, and your logic doesn't point to anything unique to state performance. This can be regressed down to municipal levels, which isn't done because it provides its own host of problems.

Let me provide my own reasoning, which will come off as crazy to some people, and I'm fine with that. It doesn't come up very often because it sounds profoundly stupid.

Now, you might find me intensely crazy (which I'm fine with), but the United States federal government is actually quite unique. The reason why the United States government is so trenchantly in debt is (not only) because of its massive stimulus, but because of various institutions it erected within the 1940s. The Bretton Woods system was the cornerstone of outlying how the Dollar can effectively function as a debt consumer. The Federal government acts as a black hole for debt, and alternatives (SDR and the Euro, for example) just don't have the institutional backing that the Federal government does.

Now, how does this counter your argument? In most ways, it doesn't. If there is a state-led position that can fulfill the role that the United States federal government does for complex international financial markets, then I would support it on those grounds. But before we can argue for its benefits, we need to figure out how that can realistically be implemented. The associated cost with turning 1 large government instead of 50 or so states into the bearers of the exorbitant privilege means that there has to be a way for each of these states to fairly associate cost with each state. How can we both fairly and efficiently determine the cost that each state must bear when not all states are equal? Who foots the bill?

American consumption and investment is innately tied to this exorbitant privilege. You probably come across the China argument a lot, but that's just one of many other effects on the federal government's role as a bearer of the greenback. States depend on injection of funds and the benefit associated with having the government act as the bearer of debt, because it allows more investments, makes goods cheaper, and provides more purchasing power to Americans on a whole. States cannot adopt this approach unless there is some wide consensus on who and how this debt will be divvied. I do not believe there is such an agreement in the forseeable future, but I must also confess I am likely not as familiar with American politics as you are.

So what does this mean? In short, the financial institutions that have led to this crappy scenario were allowed to do so because the United States federal government is uniquely resilient in credit crises. We can't just dismantle the federal government because there is no functioning policy alternative. Now, does this mean that my argument is based on a 'it's good because it's the only thing we've got' claim? In a way, yes. But what matters is that if you want to establish more power for the states, you need to give me a policy change that can and will be implemented, and can work for effectively under this problem than the current situation allows.

[Vedastia]

A house divided cannot stand; the United States is a house divided.

[Grenartia]

A house divided cannot stand; the United States is a house divided.

No, it isn't. And we've still managed to stand even AFTER having been divided before.

[The Black Forrest]

A house divided cannot stand; the United States is a house divided.

The US has always been like family gatherings on holidays.

[Genivaria]

A house divided cannot stand; the United States is a house divided.

What bullshit is this?

[Grave_n_idle]

A house divided cannot stand; the United States is a house divided.

The continuing success of bicameral political structures - where two internal factions are specifically designed to, not only separate, but to check and balance one another - suggests that 'a house divided cannot stand' might have been alright for Stone Age shamans, but has been somewhere between irrelevant and just flat wrong for millennia.

[Death Metal]

A house divided cannot stand; the United States is a house divided.

Bullshit. The US did not a house divided, it is a house with 50 rooms.

Unless you want to explain how only studio apartments without bathrooms are now the only thing that constitutes a house.