For example, when the Obama administration introduced the healthy lunch program. Any school district that refused to participate risked losing federal funding, with the only schools able to ignore this being privately funded ones. It's really a scummy thing to do.

"Agree with us on every issue or we will cut you off of the money source we made you dependent on"

However, I think if the federal tax rate decreased and local government became increasingly more reliant on local taxes, then people would care more about local politics and overall being more involved. People take notice as to how much they are paying in taxes, money speaks volumes in that sense.

It's like weening a baby off of it's bottle. It's hard at first, since the baby is dependent on it, but once you've done it the baby now has more choices in what it can eat (not perfect but just an analogy)

LOL

The real problem is that

the state has to depend on the federal government

that's how the federal government know it won't secede

If a state ever said nah

we dont need that block grant

we're good

the federal government is immediately on lockdown "holy shit this state is actually wanting to be independent"

The concept keeping our union together is that the federal government provides the external defense while the states manage their internal affairs, it's the best of both worlds. A state would have no desire to succeed simply because they have the ability to freely manage internal affairs as they still don't have the ability to provide adequate external defense

Actually

My issue is when that federal government decides "We're going to both provide this external defense and also have extensive internal affair management as well."

A state would have a desire to secede if they realize they can be financially independent.

That's how the Civil War even started

hoping that the southern states thought they were independent enough to secede from the union

that they didnt even need those stupid tariffs affecting them

Financially independent does not equal ability to externally defend

they didnt need those damn anti-slavery politics

The southern states believed they would be able to externally defend with their combined might, say, a *Confederacy of states* if you will

hold up

you do realize you need an economy

for an army

I have never seen a nation able to have an army with no economy

They thought they were independent enough not to succeed and become a sovereign entity, but to form another competing group of states. That's why we saw USA vs CSA and not USA vs a dozen sovereign states

And yes, of course?

I've never said you don't need an economy for an army

The CSA thoguht they were financially independent enough

They were hoping the European powers would intervene

on their behalf

"because them southerners cotton were worth it"

Yes, that is true, they believed it would occur, however British distaste for slavery as well as technological advancements meant this never happened

Wasn't even a distaste for slavery

it was the fact that British had access to Egyptian Cotton and Indian cotton

But that's another topic

The Confederate States simply lost was because they lost the Western Front.

It was a mixture. Minor military aid for another source of cotton would have been a sound investment for the British but yea it's another topic

Because despite that the east-confederate state are financially sound

a majority of western-confederate states were not