re: #280 Daniel Ballard

We should agree to disagree on this

Why can’t you just answer the question? It’s a really, really important one for someone championing state-level rights. It won’t go away— I’ll just re-ask it the next time a states issue comes up. What is it about the state that makes it the ideal level, and how can that possibly be, as you say, based on demographics, population, etc when the population of New York City is bigger than that of eight other states combined? If more local control is desirable, how is a Californian systems covering 36 million people be the same level of control as a system covering 400,000 people?

You’re not dealing with the central aspect of your proposal— why the power should be at the state level.

So California was right to decline the opportunity, and Massachusetts was wrong to have a state based system?

No clue what you’re asking here. We don’t have a national system. In its absence, the highest possible level, the state, was enacted in Massachussets. That’s good, but it would be better if it were a national program.

What you need to account for is the vast disconnect between your argument about demographics and the level of the state, which is not a demographic demarcation.