Weena wrote:
If it drove energy out of state, it would seem to me that they got the clean air they wanted.
That's a lazy answer. The choice is only binary because of ideology. It's entirely possible to engage in an organized effort to get everyone playing the same game and commit to better power sources.
In other words, libertarianism just doesn't work. It doesn't yield the best possible result - it yields the worst possible result. QED
-----
Also, regarding renewable power being not able to satisfy demand, it's not only not true, it's contrary to truth. Solar plant not producing enough power? Build another. Still not enough? Build another. Need more? Build another. There's no bottleneck when it comes to solar or wind or water power, or even nuclear, really. Coal and oil have fundamental bottlenecks driven by the limits of extraction, pollution, distribution, and market forces. Most renewable sources of energy are by their very nature infinitely scalable.
Weena wrote:
As far as pollution across state lines, that's actually something for the federal government. And there's far more effective ways keeping states surrounding California from polluting it than blanket standards.
...such as?
Weena wrote:
The first three are empires, and limited federal power probably had little to do with their downfall.
Voltaire said something amusing about the Holy Roman Empire.
An empire is a federal system by another name. Federal power had a great deal to do with the fall of those three empires. Anyway, I underlined the operative phrase. "Probably". Before making far-reaching generalizations about how an ideology "should" "probably" play out, one should keep the cart behind the horse and actually read a bit about history.
Weena wrote:
Better government would also seem to be subjective.
Nope. The best government is the one that provides the greatest degree of self-actualization for its citizens. The proof is in the pudding.
Weena wrote:
I don't have well versed history of these places, so was it a limited federal government that were the major factor in their downfall, or were they limited federal governments that just happened to fall for other reasons?
The former. I can go into specifics if you like.
Weena wrote:
My utilities go out, how has that affected you?
Your state has a blackout. Your state has reduced economic productivity and has to be propped up by the rest of the country via federal relief. Businesses that deal with your state face losses. Doing nothing and "letting the market work it out" is completely unrealistic because it would weaken the nation as a whole and because people are simply not going to "die in a corner".
If your state consistently suffers from mismanagement then your naked and desperate citizens will come swarming over our borders, causing all sorts of a ruckus. Obviously, that's not okay.
Power networks aren't state-specific. Power is moved across state and national borders on a regular basis. If your state passes a law making it legal to burn coal with a high lead and mercury content, then export the power to other states, that's a problem for everyone.
There is also the question of economy of scale and resource utilization. If four states together use, say, a gigawatt of power, the Feds could come in and mandate that one of them build a nuclear reactor in whatever the best location is. Failing that, given human nature and the egos of individuals and organizations, it's more likely that each of the four states will build their own small-scale, inefficient power plant, reducing in a lower standard of living for all their citizens.
America has many rivers that run through multiple states. Say the state upstream decides to fish out all the fish, or dam the river, or do any sort of thing on land that just happens to be in their borders but affects the states downstream. Or how do you decide which state shells out to build a fish hatchery in their region? What if there's a particularly optimal place to put a very large dam, but all the states want it in THEIR borders?
If you want a real-world example of why libertarianism completely doesn't work when it comes to utilities, go read about the CA power crisis of 2001.
Weena wrote:
A bridge here in MN fell, if no federal taxes went towards it, what direct effect did it have on you?
Most obviously, cargo going through your state has been held up. The breakdown of the trade network was one of the major problems of the late Roman Empire.
Besides that, your citizens are unhappy and we don't want them swarming over our border. Again, your people are not just going to "die in a corner". If CA has a massive economic advantage as-is, and MN suffers a setback, without strong federal intervention, CA investors will come in and royally screw your state by turning you into a bunch of sharecroppers. That's exactly what happened after the American Civil War - that is when and how the term "carpetbagger" came into being.
How is what you're describing any different than our relationship with Mexico? The Mexicans can't manage their own affairs, and so their problems are suddenly our problems because they aren't content to "die in a corner"...they come here, desperate, looking for jobs, distrusted by the natives, and motivated to a dangerous extent by pure opportunism. That's a bad relationship we have with Mexico - do we want that between states? Because that's what "move between states" means in practice.
Weena wrote:
Discrimination against carpetbaggers... lolwut. That term is so old and outdated that I bet a lot of people had to look it up.
...because of federal power.
Case in point. Libertarianism is a philosophy of entitlement. The Americans who believe in it do not appreciate what they enjoy or how it came to pass.
Weena wrote:
Aside from changing jobs - which becomes very easy if you work for a big bad corporation who can just transfer you over, is the only thing aside from some paper work, that makes moving across state lines harder.
There's Proposition 13 and similar laws. If you don't know what that is look it up. There's also discrimination like I mentioned...and why would your corp extend you that courtesy, if they don't have to? What if you don't have a job at all?
People migrate all the time chasing rainbows that aren't real. It's one of the major causes of urbanization and why so many of the biggest cities are so dysfunctional. Migration is not a basis for a stable society.
Weena wrote:
Not quite sure what this is about. Pretty sure it was a federal government decision to open the waters (because coastal waters fall under federal jurisdiction) and private companies that made the mistake.
bzzzzzt
You're making an ignorant assumption purely because this anti-federal propaganda is telling you that anything bad that happens must be the Feds' fault.
States control the decision to mine and explore in their own waters. In CA, for example, offshore drilling is illegal.
Weena wrote:
The idea of 'one size fits all' is crazy and I'm not a cat.
Federal systems AREN'T one size fits all. Federal and imperial systems operate on the principle of mutual support and cooperation. The big support the small; everyone brings something different to the table. It is because of our federal system, for example, that Florida has a space base, Alaska harvests resources, NY manages finance, and Texas does land/labor intensive industries, and they aren't all looking over each others' backs because they're stuck in a zero-sum game where any gain for another state is a loss for them when that state tries to leverage their advantage.
Libertarianism is the one-size-fits-all solution - as if every state, every region, of any shape and size, is perfectly disposed to compete on a level playing field against all others, and be completely politically and economically self-sufficient towards that end. Obviously, one size does NOT fit all, and in a libertarian state, the big will prey on the small.
Also see: Prussia
