This is because I was never asking why state is better than national. That's been my point EVERY TIME I replied to you. I have tried to explain it in a half dozen ways and you still insist on talking about state vs national only.
Pretty much. As I said, more generally, we can also talk about SPECIFIC functions, and what level they would be best at, if that makes the question easier to answer. My speculation, as I said, is that "state" isn't the best answer most of the time even if state is better than national. For example, is there a list of government functions that are best at the state level and not at ANY OTHER (i.e. not just national) potential level? If so, why?
I generally agree that a multi-state compact seems to make sense. But federal/national/independent body also theoretically makes sense since that entity in this situation can function as a mediator and enforce similar rules across the board (so no one feels like they are being cheated). Of course, reality is much more murky and SOMEONE always wins/loses. Another reason why a more national approach may be required is that water resources can also have international ramifications - since rivers and water tables don't respect national borders either.
Anyway, I am working on a post for why I don't think state is the best level for a lot of things, that local, regional, and national generally seems to make far more sense (except again, insofar that the US already has a lot of things "ready" at the State level due to historical context).
Sokolov I thought your essential question was what makes issue 'X' appropriate for what level of government to address (assuming it is to be addressed by government)? My short answer to that question is if issue 'X' deals with national survival or is something that you need a uniform policy throughout the country regardless of the size of the country, that needs to go to the national level. Article 1 Section 8 in the US Constitution is a good list. I think about two thirds of what the feds are doing should be at state or local level. For a nation the size of the US, everything else should go state or local due to the 4 reasons in my last post. As I admitted before I'm not as clear about the delineation between state and local other than the general approach of addressing the issue at the lowest level possible. I recognize different localities have vastly different resources. El Paso and the county have the resources of a small state while Hudspeth county just to the east is a low-population, rural county. Things like public works would go to the state augmentable by the local. I'm not opposed to the state creating something above the local for a particular purpose operating with state authority. That may work quite well for certain public works for example utilities. Between the national and state it would have to be something created by the national to more effectively do something the national level is supposed to do and not take anything away from the state level. FEMA has various regions to react to emergencies. BTW I don't have to go TDY yet so I'm not flying today.
So I am going to start by talking broadly about what benefits from more local control and what benefits from more from higher level control. Efficiency goes both ways and depends on the specific item, but certain things are more efficient at more local levels due to the ability to better respond to local conditions - these include things like emergency services such as Fire or Police. These things do not typically leverage any efficiency gains from expanded control, though in cases like police, some sort of national database and cross-state co-operation also makes sense. Other things benefit from economies of scale and standardization, an example is the US railway system - which, in its early days, suffered from regional battles with differing standards - wrecking havoc on commerce and industry attempting to utilize this infrastructure. A national standard was adopted. Business and Commerce can also often benefit from both types of functions. Local business associations provide networking and other opportunities within a local neighborhood, while national or even international standards, regulations and guidelines makes doing business easier when everyone is using the same definitions. Consumers can also benefit, as standards are that maintained or required on a broader level means more informed consumers and the ability to make better choices. The ACA, for example, mandated a particular format and information display with regards to insurance plans - while it's not perfect, for anyone who has ever tried to choose a plan prior to the ACA, it is much more readable and easier to understand. Data, in particular, really likes being standardized so it can be shared and compared (here is an example of where data could have prevented spills: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/study-of-fracking-in-four-states-uncovers-over-6600-spills). Local authority allows communities to make the rules that makes sense for their community, while broader control at the state or national levels can leverage economies of scale and intrafrastructure. For example, it probably doesn't make sense for each city to have its own driver's license, as the nature of driving takes you between jurisdiction's often. ~ In general, most things tend to benefit more from very local, or very broad, and very few things seem to fall under the nebulous idea of "state" from a strictly efficiency/logical POV. That said, lots of things makes sense as state level given the current contextof the US simply because states exist and they want to make their own laws and rules - even if it is not efficient. ~ This is still quite general, and I do want to talk more specifically about specific functions and whether they should lean towards local or broad.
