The American system was designed to be conservative in nature, meaning resistant to rapid, radical change. As opposed to parliamentary systems in which a majority government effectively has total and unassailable power.

There are benefits and drawbacks to such a system.

The benefit is that it's less amenable to the whims of the mob. The drawback is that it's less adaptive to rapidly changing conditions.

Huh, I. Didnt hear that before, but it does make sense.

The original form of the American system was even more conservative. Senators were appointed and recalled by state legislature, and state legislatures don't tend to change in make-up very often.

Well my explanation was how would you like it if you as a farmer was yold what not to do by some city dweller.

Federalism was supposed to alleviate that. Unfortunately Federalism has lost most of its strength post-Reconstruction.

The original idea was that individual states would handle most of their own affairs, and only the common defense, borders, etc and the trade between states would be subject to federal law.

Well basically the civil war was about a disagreement regarding that.

Well, there was a lot of preemptive action taken by the South. They perceived eventual legal loss of their ability to own slaves, and so acted extra-legally before such legal action could be taken.

Slavery wasn't banned until after the war was well underway.

And under the system of federal government that existed at the time, it's quite possible that had the South stayed in the union that they would've held onto their slaves for decades more.

Thing is, it was about how much overreach a singular govt would have.

Confederates wanted less govt. But to establish a rule of law, you have to be prepared to shoot anyone who adamantly refuses.

a lot of changes in recent time have made it more adaptive to rapidly changing conditions at the cost of consolidating power.

which is slightly ironic because smaller, independent units with autonomy are much quicker to adapt to things that are causing a direct problem to them, which may not end up being problems elsewhere

isn't that like 50% of the gun debate issue?
city slickers wanting all guns away (NYC, LA and D.C.)
country people needing it to defend property and hunt pests? (anywhere outside cities)

cuz those that want it removed want it everywhere in every state

not exactly, but is a noticeable trend.

there are people in the inner cities who want guns to protect themselves from others with guns, and there are people who live in the country who are animal loving hippies who will probably get eaten by a bear

I get what you mean though,

Arizona doesn't need a federal supply for snow-tires

Change at the federal level should be hard for that reason. Because a change at the federal level should be resistant to rapid change to prevent mod rule, and prevent tyranny. Give the states more power, they can adapt quickly. if each state can adapt quickly, the country can adapt quickly. But it will not happen at the same time.

that is the downside

at least, in some people's eyes

yeah

i still don't get why anti-gun people go right to the feds first. like hello, you need a hell of a lot less people to flip a state than to flip the feds.

but then again, the upside is, that some places don't need to adapt a lot, so they don't have to waste federal funds, which can then be shifted to states that DO

like no shit nothing "gets done" to you, you are trying to take on texas when you don't even need to.

i dont think most of those people know any better, I don't even think they can tell the difference between State and Federal government

To them its just "the government" so "the government" should control guns etc

and who's at the top of "the government?" Congress and the president

states should not get federal funds tbh. The states should have to pay for their own shit, and the feds take what is needed to for their role. That being common defense and keeping states cooperating

maybe disaster aid but even then, i think private charities might be better off as the government will give out the smallest amount possible.

In a way, thats right

But i think with that you get the point where people are gonna flee poor performing states and move to big states, which then causes big states to have to provide more services etc, whilst the poorer states become dry husks, like the rust-belt

like FEMA? they literally have a budget given to them before the storm damage is even calculated. Which means you are not gonna get nearly what you need to help you. You might as well start a gofundme

well you see it with cities all the time: Place gets rich, poor people follow the rich because they are the ones doing all the jobs that needs to be done that no one wants to do. then all these poor people show up so the rich people leave. eventually the rich people come back because hey! cheap land only filled with poor people! lets buy them out and send them over to where ever we just came from! so the poor people leave, then they come back because the rich people don't pay well, and the cycle continues

look at cali and how many people they are exporting and where it is going

yeah

its a slow cycle
LA is where hollywood and industry is
lots of slackers move to LA, LA becomes more expensive, due to higher job demand, wages go down
due to higher costs, taxes go up
Rich-people bail, and all tahts left is poorness

there is no good way to stop this cycle without either creating leeches that don't work but take money from the government, or banning movement between areas

a good way (albeit expensive and very revolutionary) would be to digitalise work environments, where you can work from home across country

that doesn't really change it