Good lord, this thread exploded since last night. For now, I'm only going to respond to those who quoted me, since those are the easiest to find. If anyone else responded to me, I missed it.
I get that in the abstract, but don't you see the real life consequences of this?
And that freedom is something that poor people can't really exercise and even middle class working people find it hard (it's not like you have job opening in all states for you to choose).
No, once again this is a freedom mostly rich people and corporations can use and it has a net negative impact on the country as a whole.
Not at all. The poor have long relied on the ability to move between states--and even nations. Just think of the Okies moving to California during the Dust Bowl, or the Great Migration of African Americans from the south. American history is rife with poor people leaving one state to move to another in search of a better life. The ability to escape from the imposition of an undesired policy (or other circumstances) has never been restricted to the rich in the United States--though empowering the federal government to impose these regulations nationwide would almost certainly do just that.
And the check is already in hour hands, we vote for the government, when people want lower taxes they can vote for a candidate that will do that (and they often do). Are you really arguing that we, the people have some sort of meaningful say in the way Toyota is making its business decisions?
I'm not talking about Toyota. I'm talking about the governments whose jurisdiction we are subject to. Yes, voting is a check on government power. But the freedom to relocate is another. And it's potentially more significant. Among other things, the government loses tax revenue when a person leaves its jurisdiction; it loses nothing when the current officeholders lose a person's vote.
And what about the Californian workers who would lose their jobs?
Obviously it's bad for them (unless they find better employment--then it's good for them). But that's part of the cost of living in a state with the policies their state has.
You view it from the perspective of capitalists. I agree that federalism is good for capitalists. It is bad for people who earn paychecks.
No, I view it from the perspective of individuals. Whether they own or control capital or not is irrelevant to my analysis.
First, this has nothing to do with federalism.
Says the guy
whose complaint about federalism started this entire discussion.
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.
That's no doubt true, but for the freedom to move--again, capital or not--to serve as a check on a government, the move must end in a jurisdiction not subject to that government's control. There are two components to this: (1) governments of geographically limited jurisdiction and (2) the freedom to move between those jurisdictions. Federalism, coupled with a nationwide market, satisfies both of those requirements.
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.
If we're going to look at the interests of society, we have to recognize that private ownership of property--including capital--is in society's interest. If you limit the rights incumbent in ownership of that property--such as the freedom to take the property elsewere--then you can expect that to have deleterious effects on the provision of capital.
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.
Notwithstanding rhetorical shortcuts, I have a problem with regarding society as an entity separate from its constituent parts. A person moving capital from one jurisdiction to another is part of society. You're saying that other parts of society--and let's be frank, you mean the government--should have the prerogative to prevent that. I don't think they should, but I think that you should at least state your case without resorting to the fiction of society-as-person.
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).
To avoid future confusion, since I know 99% is too high to represent the proportion of non-capitalists, what secret value did you secretly assign to this statement when you wrote "99"?
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.
No, they would not be ideal, since it would be much harder for anyone--and particularly the workers you claim to care about--to escape the jurisdiction of a government whose policies they object to. This isn't about pitting workers against other workers to compete for capital. It's about pitting state governments against other state governments to compete for residents.
You just said above that you view it from the perspective of capitalists, so you are contradicting yourself.
Responding to this requires clear thinking about two subjects: first, the distinction between you (empty vessel) and me (Metaphoreus), and second, the distinction between things said by you (empty vessel) and things said by me (Metaphoreus). I didn't say that at all--you said that. I hope this clears things up.
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.
You'll need to prove these things, not just assert them.
