if i don't' like the schools, taxes, and government of this state, i can move to another.
While I understand that people are somewhat mobile - one should not need to move to another state to obtain a level of assurance that can otherwise be obtained.
you would have no problem pooping over to Canada and reading the labels before buying aspirin?
Canada has regulation at the national level - not territory.
the whole point is that most of what the feds do, they should not. we are designed to be different so that people have choice.
We live in an increasingly competitive international economy and everything that contributes to the health of the US economy (education, health, business regulation, tax rates, infrastructure, product labeling, weights & measures, etc.) affect America's competitiveness. A strong and internationally competitive US economy is advantageous for all Americans. Most other (economically advanced) countries have strong national programs that parallel those of the US. Inviting 50 states to go their own way – when the federal government can do it collectively would hurt America's competitiveness.
Government breeds corruption – both at the national level and local level – but from my experience, the lower you go – the greater the opportunity for corruption to succeed undetected.
The US federal government is in a sense an insurance company for the US – protecting against adversaries, assisting with national disasters, preventing or ameliorating against the effects of man-made disasters (such as the current financial fiasco). As with any insurance scheme, scale reduces costs for all.
Centralizing controls and services at the higher levels of government is not only cost effective, but reduces opportunity for fraud, and increases international competitiveness – all leading to higher standards of living.
An extension of this, would be allocating even more – to world bodies. There are numerous G-7’s / G-8’s / G-20’s gatherings that inform international policies, and there is the WHO, and I am sure a few more that can serve as examples.
To extend the example, as I travel, I do not want to need to analyze Aspirin quality – whether in Canada, one of the US states, Japan, China, Bangladesh, or Mexico. Because strong national controls are in place in Canada, the US (FDA) and Japan – I am safe, but probably not so in China, Bangladesh, or Mexico. The point being - that advanced countries can do it right at the national level - so why invite third-world status for (some) US states? (As for alcohol, remove the regulations, and I have some old lead repaired radiators that I am just itching to put into service.)
Yes I know that the US government can seem oppressive – particularly when seen through the lens of an individual. And of course there are many areas of life where there is no national benefit to centralized control, or even any control at all. But for the majority of the population, the US government through the services and regulations it provides, delivers real economic benefit to Americans.
Yes - that pesky constitution relagates the states to do more - and constitutional challenges do sometimes succeed, but for the services and regulation that the federal government is providing, it seems that the courts have taken a different view. For the benefits obtained, I generally like that.