I don't view the question from the states' perspective. I also don't view the question from the perspective of those who want the power to compel others to behave in a way those others would rather not. Instead, I view it from the perspective of those others. For them, it is good that they are able to escape the jurisdiction of a government whose policies they dislike.
You view it from the perspective of capitalists. I agree that federalism is good for capitalists. It is bad for people who earn paychecks.
The freedom to leave is an important--though underappreciated--check on government power. And it's a check that's in our hands.
First, this has nothing to do with federalism. The freedom to move capital does not depend upon the existence of political subdivision. A federal or non-federal government may or may not permit capital movement. Second, even if it did have anything to do with federalism, I do not believe the freedom to move capital to be a check on government power that should be permitted, because of capital's importance to society. Capital should be considered a public asset and to whatever extent it is not the society's strong interest in it must nevertheless be recognized. Thus, a society may permit capital movement, but it should always have the prerogative to deny capital movement and regulate it as necessary to serve the public interest. Third, the power of moving capital in a capitalist society is not in fact in our hands. It is only in the hands of capitalists (which over 99% of people are not).
Nationally uniform laws governing business would clearly be ideal. There is no reason to use artificial constructs like political divisions to make American workers compete against each other for access to capital.
I also don't view it from the perspective of a particular class. But it certainly seems beneficial to the Texas workers who will gain jobs from this move that Toyota is making the move.
You just said above that you view it from the perspective of capitalists, so you are contradicting yourself. While this may be marginally beneficial to Texas workers who will gain jobs, it is a net detriment to the country, because regulations will be lessened. Anybody who cares about the country as a whole would oppose policy that makes us collectively worse off, even if the losses and gains are unevenly distributed. So what we have here is California loses X, Texas gains Y, and the US as a whole loses Z.
While it makes sense for a business to look at the different options and take the best one for its owners, it would be better to set a national policy applicable to all and allow substantive competition where it counts--in production. Seeking and obtaining competitive edges through tax and regulatory policy is not what is meant by competition in capitalist doctrine.
