19 Oct 2009

How Valuable Are States? ctd.

Like I wrote, I'm still up in the air over this one. I think that the boundaries/number/size of states could be altered, especially in the American West where most of the states between the Sierra Nevada and the Rockies were created in the 1890s by Republicans in order to maximize their Senate seats during a phase of unpopularity during an economic depression. No one even knows which became a state first, North or South Dakota (Benjamin Harrison shuffled the papers for a practical joke on history). Now, especially as these areas are rapidly depopulating, it seems odd to say the least that Wyoming or Idaho have the clout that they do, controlling the destiny of essentially all of America and the entire world.

I also think that the defenders of states are mixing two separate debates: the merits of a Senate equally apportioned among states, and the merits of a level of state government, period. I do think that overall the Senate makes sense in some intentionally twisted and backward way, and is ultimately a source of constitutional genius. SO many constitutional arguments (Europe, Iraq, what have you) seem like they could be smoothed if they were offered a Connecticut Compromise.

Also, one rebuttal against the pro-state article. The states are not sovereign in the sense that they have approved the Constitution. The original 13 states did approve a federal level of government in the sense that they agreed to nullify and forsake their previous Confederation as quasi-independent states. However, in all cases the Constitution was ratified by popularly-elected conventions, not by state legislatures. The federal government, like the state government, therefore derives its legitimacy directly from the citizenry, and not from the states. All subsequent states could only become states upon approval by Congress (and quite a few, such as "Franklin" and "Jefferson", were vetoed, despite having functioning governments).

Anyway, to address some of Andrew's points: I'm not sure how abolishing state governments in favor of non-governmental organizations or metropolitan authorities would actually streamline governance, especially as these two types of entities are already in operation (besides, wouldn't giving this kind of authority to non-governmental organizations make them, well, governments?).

And as for registering businesses/regulating intra-state commerce, I would say that a) most businesses are small and their effective business reach is within a few miles of their home point of operation, and b) states governing the registration and operation of businesses gives larger organizations the ability to operate more efficiently (apparently from observation with little "race to the bottom"). If a state has enough commercial expertise or is a focal point for many major businesses, it can have quite some clout in lawsuits against defendants in other countries even. Delaware's business courts are quite powerful (I believe that the Russian government was sued over its dismemberment of Yukos there). Perhaps Delaware has a limited reach beyond its borders, but considering how many businesses register there for doing business in the US, one does not cross them lightly.