> What I mean by that is that when someone says we should federally allow abortion, they don't do it from a mental framing where they feel that it is the sole right of the federal government to decide to do such a thing. They do it from a position where the outcome they desire is for everyone to have access to abortion and the federal government is a tool to enable it.

This is an interesting interpretation, I feel like that gave me a better understanding of your position, well argued :) I also want to thank you for taking the time to engage in a friendly and genuinely interesting conversation.

This isn't really an ideological Constitutional perspective on my end either. I'm not entrenched in the concept of states so much as that I think "rules for everyone" are contentious and typically a bad idea. Eg I'd be open to the idea of granting the greatest power to counties if I could be convinced that it wouldn't confuse the hell out of everyone because of the varying jurisdictions.

States are, to me, also just a useful abstraction. They feel like about as small of a unit of jurisdiction as we could feasibly have without completely ruining any kind of cohesion or economy.

> Outside of the ideological aspect though, programs of these types almost invariably perform better at larger scales, similarly to how larger insurance almost invariably perform better than smaller ones. Remove bureaucratic messes like means testing and there's simply no way for a state run M4A or UBI to be as effective as a federal one.

In an ideal world, I would definitely agree. In the real world, I think I still agree, but less strongly. At the federal level, you'll have to deal with Alabama or Florida constantly trying to ruin it, the same way Medicare currently is.

Some states are likely incapable of running UBI at all on their own, because their populace is too poor. There isn't enough wealth to redistribute.

> I haven't given it enough consideration to have a firm idea of how to address it but having 1 representative to almost million voters is not tenable. The population has tripled since the last time we increased the number of house reps. At the founding a US house rep had as many constituents as a modern state rep does.

This is basically where I started, and ended up with my current views. Expanding the House and/or Senate sounds good, because your rep cares more what you think, but it also waters down how much influence your rep has.

I.e. you get more influence over a less influential person.

In a similar statistical tract, there were only 2.5 million people in the US in 1776. That is to say that at it's founding, the federal government ruled a populace that was 6.25% the population of just California (the voting population in 1776 would have been even lower because of the rampant disenfranchisement).

Early citizens had more individual control of the federal government than modern CA citizens have over their own state.

The city I live in has almost half the population of 1776 US.

I do think the nature of government has changed as these mechanisms have been stretched to population levels their creators probably never imagined.

> That's not a stance I agree with but it's not unreasonable. I frequently find that people advocating for that level of state's rights can be pushed to reveal that they think governance itself is morally wrong, that taxes are violence, and that disempowering the federal government is only the beginning. Somewhat similarly to how some advocating for M4A do so without arguing their real agenda of nationalizing everything under the sun.

I empathize with some of those views, but also recognize they're just not feasible.

I don't think governance is morally wrong. I do find it less than ideal that people are effectively coopted into a government at birth, and subject to rule by an entity that they never have the opportunity to reject. I would support a primarily ideological measure to allow people to revoke their citizenship and go live in the woods and grow mushrooms or whatever they want to do the government won't let them do. Something similar to the arrangement with Native American tribes.

That sentiment is largely intertwined with the reality that basically all habitable land is claimed at this point. You can't ride off into the wilderness to found your own civilization anymore. I do think there should be some kind of escape hatch for people who find governmental rule oppressive. They might be nutjobs or wrong about what they want, but I do think they deserve the right to bow out of society (both the bad and the good) if they do choose.

I do think there's an aspect of violence to taxes (primarily due to the above compulsory membership), but it's unfortunately unavoidable. If there were a way for the government to function without compulsory taxes, I would support it, but there isn't. Things have to be paid for, and asking people to voluntarily donate would be a budgeting nightmare and destroy the government.

To me, those issues really stem from governments being founded on the monopoly on violence. I would prefer a world where our governments aren't bound together by violence, but by a genuine desire of every citizen to keep them going. Where people don't pay taxes because they're afraid of going to jail, but because they're proud of what those taxes enable. Where people join a government because they want to contribute to what that government stands for.

Sadly, I don't think we're there, nor are we particularly close. The monopoly on violence has historically been the only real means to maintain social cohesion and a functional government. Perhaps one day far in the future.