LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:38 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:02 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:27 pm But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

I sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yeah, but those powers have been delegated to the United States.

You are saying you don't like that the interstate commerce clause is the foundation for that grant, yet, it's in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld as providing such grant.

And you seemed to suggest that there were situations in which that seems to you to be wholly inappropriate or wrong (if I understood you correctly).

So, I was just trying to figure out what decisions made through federal legislation you think should have been made at the state level instead.

I quite agree about "good intentions" but that's what democracy is all about. We try, with all good intentions (hopefully) to decide things that will work well...if they do not, we adjust. We get lots of swings at the ball.

But the question is whether such democratically made decisions should be at the federal level or whether they're better made at the state level.

I presented a construct that is a rational explanation for why the interstate implications should matter, I haven't heard your explanation for why state preferences should trump that logic...and some examples.

By contrast, I can give you plenty of examples of decisions made at a state level that you and I would agree were terrible and needed to be overturned one way or another by a federal authority, whether Congress or SCOTUS.

I’d allow insurance to sell across state borders freely, gambling and weed.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:49 pm Insurance is one that is really, really stupid to have done at the state level. Adds huge inefficiencies.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:19 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:49 pm Insurance is one that is really, really stupid to have done at the state level. Adds huge inefficiencies.

I agree state level regulation of insurance is stupid - for the citizens... But that is regulatory capture for you. You don't think the insurance industry is just fine with it being state by state? If they weren't, the laws would change. It is a huge barrier to entry for new would-be insurers.

MD - I already did give you one (extreme) example - the returning of runaway slaves.

Here are few more:

Speed limits on federal highways - this has been somewhat remedied with the removal of the 55 mph cap, but it was nonsensical for NJ to have the same speed limits at Montana. So what happened? MT made speeding a non-event with very small fines.

Drinking ages - your example of people crossing state lines drunk makes no sense at all. If Vermont is worried about people getting drunk in New Hampshire and driving back into VT, set up road blocks at the state line and arrest them for violating the VT law when it is relevant. The same example could be used around abortion rights - should OK be able to make abortion illegal in MO? No.

There are a LOT of 51/49 national level issues that would be better adjudicated at the state level.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:48 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:38 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:02 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:27 pm But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

I sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yeah, but those powers have been delegated to the United States.

You are saying you don't like that the interstate commerce clause is the foundation for that grant, yet, it's in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld as providing such grant.

And you seemed to suggest that there were situations in which that seems to you to be wholly inappropriate or wrong (if I understood you correctly).

So, I was just trying to figure out what decisions made through federal legislation you think should have been made at the state level instead.

I quite agree about "good intentions" but that's what democracy is all about. We try, with all good intentions (hopefully) to decide things that will work well...if they do not, we adjust. We get lots of swings at the ball.

But the question is whether such democratically made decisions should be at the federal level or whether they're better made at the state level.

I presented a construct that is a rational explanation for why the interstate implications should matter, I haven't heard your explanation for why state preferences should trump that logic...and some examples.

By contrast, I can give you plenty of examples of decisions made at a state level that you and I would agree were terrible and needed to be overturned one way or another by a federal authority, whether Congress or SCOTUS.

I’d allow insurance to sell across state borders freely, gambling and weed.

Nothing in the Constitution says that the States can't band together and form an EU style trade organization that isn't the Federal Government.

And yes, that sounds stupid, but the amount of pointless paperwork and red tape you have to deal with to simply sell things in different States is absurd.

We are SO bad at capitalism in America. We prefer monopolistic, "good ol' boys" "you ain't from around here" capitalism, where being the governor's buddy is 100 times more important than building a better mousetrap.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:41 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:48 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:38 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:02 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:53 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 1:27 pm But back to "interstate implications"...my general argument is that we should do federally what doing so most efficiently and fairly achieves the public good versus individual state determinations that are otherwise creating inefficiencies and inequities. (not sure I've articulated that well, but hopefully clear).

That needn't mean that there aren't variations enacted at state levels, but when there is demonstrable benefit to common expectations and standards that people can rely upon when moving from state to state, that's beneficial...if that can't be demonstrated then probably should be up to the state.

I sympathize with your desire for efficiency, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. As the saying used to go - the trains ran on time.... More importantly it flies in the face of that pesky thing the Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yeah, but those powers have been delegated to the United States.

You are saying you don't like that the interstate commerce clause is the foundation for that grant, yet, it's in the Constitution and has been repeatedly upheld as providing such grant.

And you seemed to suggest that there were situations in which that seems to you to be wholly inappropriate or wrong (if I understood you correctly).

So, I was just trying to figure out what decisions made through federal legislation you think should have been made at the state level instead.

I quite agree about "good intentions" but that's what democracy is all about. We try, with all good intentions (hopefully) to decide things that will work well...if they do not, we adjust. We get lots of swings at the ball.

But the question is whether such democratically made decisions should be at the federal level or whether they're better made at the state level.

I presented a construct that is a rational explanation for why the interstate implications should matter, I haven't heard your explanation for why state preferences should trump that logic...and some examples.

By contrast, I can give you plenty of examples of decisions made at a state level that you and I would agree were terrible and needed to be overturned one way or another by a federal authority, whether Congress or SCOTUS.

I’d allow insurance to sell across state borders freely, gambling and weed.

Nothing in the Constitution says that the States can't band together and form an EU style trade organization that isn't the Federal Government.

And yes, that sounds stupid, but the amount of pointless paperwork and red tape you have to deal with to simply sell things in different States is absurd.

We are SO bad at capitalism in America. We prefer monopolistic, "good ol' boys" "you ain't from around here" capitalism, where being the governor's buddy is 100 times more important than building a better mousetrap.

What you’re describing sounds a little like sub Saharan Africa…

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:41 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 2:48 pmNothing in the Constitution says that the States can't band together and form an EU style trade organization that isn't the Federal Government.

And yes, that sounds stupid, but the amount of pointless paperwork and red tape you have to deal with to simply sell things in different States is absurd.

We are SO bad at capitalism in America. We prefer monopolistic, "good ol' boys" "you ain't from around here" capitalism, where being the governor's buddy is 100 times more important than building a better mousetrap.

What you’re describing sounds a little like sub Saharan Africa…

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 5:22 pm afan - we haven't really had a loose state's rights dominated economy in my lifetime. But, of the a few places where that lingers - ONE of them hits very close to home for you - the regulation of booze. So I get your perspective.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:23 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.

I didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.

this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:10 pm But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:19 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:10 pm But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.

you are absolutely right about this. With my magic wand, I would make the federal government's primary domestic role be to seek out and highlight state level corruption and act as a venue for state citizens to "sue" their state governments. FBI is a great potential example - in my world they would do some cross-border coordination - but their day-to-day would be lots of finding and weeding out bad cops.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:19 pm You don't think the insurance industry is just fine with it being state by state? If they weren't, the laws would change. It is a huge barrier to entry for new would-be insurers.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:40 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:19 pm You don't think the insurance industry is just fine with it being state by state? If they weren't, the laws would change. It is a huge barrier to entry for new would-be insurers.

Actually insurers, at least the big ones, would much prefer federal regulation of the industry. Probably even small carriers as well. One set of rules as opposed to 50. The pinheaded bureaucrats in the states want the power to push around the big boys. And they have the political clout to keep it that way so the McCarran Ferguson Act remains the law of the land.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:42 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:40 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:19 pm You don't think the insurance industry is just fine with it being state by state? If they weren't, the laws would change. It is a huge barrier to entry for new would-be insurers.

Actually insurers, at least the big ones, would much prefer federal regulation of the industry. Probably even small carriers as well. One set of rules as opposed to 50. The pinheaded bureaucrats in the states want the power to push around the big boys. And they have the political clout to keep it that way so the McCarran Ferguson Act remains the law of the land.

That's my understanding as well. And I deal with a lot of insurers.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:40 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:19 pm You don't think the insurance industry is just fine with it being state by state? If they weren't, the laws would change. It is a huge barrier to entry for new would-be insurers.

Actually insurers, at least the big ones, would much prefer federal regulation of the industry. Probably even small carriers as well. One set of rules as opposed to 50. The pinheaded bureaucrats in the states want the power to push around the big boys. And they have the political clout to keep it that way so the McCarran Ferguson Act remains the law of the land.

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:02 pm A level playing field makes it easier for smaller businesses. Means they would deal with less bureaucracy, paperwork, legalese and as a result have lower expenses tracking and following a variety of differing state laws.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:46 pm Nope, they aren't. My father was head of a big insurance co. in the 60s and 70s. He adamantly wanted federal legislation and, in fact, testified in support thereof before Congress in the 70s. He said to me more than once that he would much rather have one set of rules than 50. He despised state insurance commissioners because, he thought, they were petty and parochial.

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:46 pm Nope, they aren't. My father was head of a big insurance co. in the 60s and 70s. He adamantly wanted federal legislation and, in fact, testified in support thereof before Congress in the 70s. He said to me more than once that he would much rather have one set of rules than 50. He despised state insurance commissioners because, he thought, they were petty and parochial.