Tyndmyr wrote:Sometimes larger companies thrive, sometimes smaller ones. The reasons for each will vary depending on market conditions.
Exactly. And I suggest that, analogously, sometimes a larger government unit is better or more successful than a smaller one. If the structure of organizations was such that a larger entity inevitably produced more waste without any associated benefit, one would expect that in a competitive market large companies would vanish, replaced by small companies. That we instead see a mixture of large and small business units suggest that both have advantages and drawbacks.
Yup. Likewise, some functions are best handled at state levels, and some are not. Usually, things that are extremely local concerns are better handled locally, simply because you're more likely to have knowledge about the area in the hands of the decision makers. Also, because US reps can't be expected to practically micromanage everything effectively.
Generally, in an argument for something being a concern of state/local governments, I'd expect to see a case made that needs vary strongly between states, and a one size fits all solution is a big problem, or something like that.
So potentially that would be a concern to take back to your libertarian-leaning friends: by making the states directly responsible for the federal tax bill, you would give the federal government potentially dictatorial power over any state that found itself in the red (where most states are today.)
Not really. You seem to assume that "libertarian" is code for "super red". Most libertarians view republicans and democrats as all essentially the same,
Citation needed. In my experience most self-identified libertarians are in fact right-wingers. But that's not relevant to the main point, which is that the proposed change could make individual states subject to greater direct control by the federal government, which is presumably something libertarians (left and right) would oppose.
The existance of a third party named "the libertarian party" should suffice to demonstrate that they are not merely a faction of the existing party in the way that say, the tea party is. The tea party is merely a faction within the republican camp. They still have voter ID cards with (R) on them, and vote for people with (R) in front of their names.
Not universally. While libertarians are generally for reduced government(myself included), they differ quite a bit on the how, and essentially all of them support at least some purposes that are best left to the federal government(military is perhaps the most agreed upon of these). Those who don't like the fed for ANYTHING are kind of anarchists or something else. There's not really a lot of those, they can be mostly ignored.
The reason why I dislike the change proposed by the OP is that it's vague and poorly supported. And also probably dysfunctional. Not because of ideology, necessarily.
leady wrote:Maybe true, but any libertarian worthy of the name has to be on the right to be consistent
There is no such thing as libertarian socialist, its a contradiction. What there are really are nasty and nice libertarians, but you can only have both in the nasty libertarian framework (which of course annoys people ala hoppe). Fundamentally all rights flow from the right to be a dick, but not a violent one
Right and left are inherently vague. I'm a libertarian, I'm all for married gays with guns. Does that make me right wing or left wing? Or hell, centrist?
And *every* side tends to think their side is consistent, and the others, totally not. Accusations of hypocricy are pretty universal in US politics.
Why the hell are "Red" states profitable and "Green States" unprofitable?
I like the information there... but good gosh, its confusing. Especially with your manner of speech "in the red". (which would be... "in the green", with respect to that graphic). Also, someone needs to be punished for forgetting about red/green colorblindness.
Strictly speaking, this is about subisides, not profitability or need for subsidies. It just means that the green states, in general, get more out than they put in. One obvious potential cause is that senators are by state, not population, and thus, less populous states have proportionately more pull. In general, that map shows the most heavily populated states as donors, and less populated states as recipients.