« I sing the praises of Preeta Bansal | Main | I like Bobby Jindal in 2012 as a challenger to Obama »

November 27, 2008



I suppose all our preferences are emotional/aesthetic in some way. I want smaller states for reasons of exit. That I find exit valuable is entirely subjective though. I'd consider the breaking up of the U.S into 10 states to be a good trade though.

Hopefully Anonymous

To be clear, I'm not advocating the break up of the US into 10 states. I'm advocating the consolidation of 50 states into 10 (I've been working out the details, which I'll post when I get a chance), although in some ways they'd have more autonomy, in some ways less.
I like it because:
1. It creates more tracks of administrative experience building for presidents (more opportunities for more candidates to administer something only 1 magnitude smaller than the USA before running for president), and
2. more opportunities for experimentation and control on legislative and regulatory ideas.


I'm more interested in #2, and it seems that would me maximized with larger numbers of small states.

Hopefully Anonymous

TGGP, for that we'd have successive smaller units, that would also have directed experimentation. Then what works would be phased into larger units. So think 10 states, 100 counties, 1000 cities, 10,000 neighborhoods (something like that).

Douglas Knight

Your suggests for changing government span a wide range of scale of plausibility of happening. I think phrasing this as how to organize an unspecified 300 million people would make it clearer what you are talking about. This is not going to happen under the incentives of the Constitution. In contrast, the public opinion about who is qualified for appoints could change.

That's not to say that you shouldn't suggest things like this, but I think you'd get more and better feedback if you phrased them differently.

Hopefully Anonymous

I think we start with the presumption that big population executives are more qualified than smaller population executives. So California Governor presumptively is the most qualified to be President. It's like a 3.75 physics MIT vs. a 3.75 geology, Arizona State.

Then there's the experimental nature of technocratic government, which I guess could be done with groupings of states, the way HHS groups the states in about 10 regions (I'm not sure if there's about 30 million people in HHS regional grouping). Centrally planned economies may not be optimal for growth, but how about centrally planned directed economic experimentation? That may be better than 100% of states choosing to do the same thing without strong empirical grounding that it's a completely optimized approach.

The comments to this entry are closed.