> On Nov 28, 2016, at 1:29 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My first impression is that you may be on to something here, Clark, that > Peirce's understanding would tend toward a kind of federalism as needed to > ensure that no single hypothesis be adopted too quickly for the country as a > whole.
Again I’m largely ignorant on Peirce’s direct views on politics - I assume he’d be a product of his times as much as a product of his underlying philosophy. However while I am embarrassed to confess I’m poorly read on the writings of the American founders, I believe that this type of extreme federalism was pushed by Madison. If I recall he wanted types of federalism down to the country, not merely state level. (Don’t quote me on that — I have never read the Federalists Papers) > While it is probably not the best example, I immediately thought of the > fairly recent remarks by Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado concerning his > state's two year experiment in legalizing cannabis and what the data (etc.) > surrounding the results of that experiment might mean for other states > considering legalization. There are lots of examples through history of state level experiments picked up by other states and even the federal government. One could also point to Obamacare’s reliance on Romney’s health care program in Massachusetts for instance. > When, as in the USA, the federal government is unable, for example, over a > long period of time to enact laws which clearly address what is rapidly > coming to be seen by many of all political persuasions as a critical need for > investment in the upgrading of the country's antiquated infrastructure (e.g. > bridges, electrical grids, water supply systems, public transportation > systems, etc.), many of which are interstate issues and so simply can't be > addressed by states alone), this presents a threat to the welfare of the > citizenry generally. Infrastructure is tricky for a variety of reasons. I’m almost loath to chime in there. I’m not sure most of the decaying infrastructure is on federal roads. Thus it’s far from clear to me that states couldn’t improve infrastructure. By and large it’s that they don’t want to spend the money to do so for a variety of reasons. This isn’t to ignore that federal roads also need upkeep. Regarding electrical grids it seems to me that part of the problem there are actually states imposing stronger environmental regulations that limit development. This was a big problem increasing the electrical grid in California for instance despite the need. I’d add though that infrastructure costs in the United States are substantially higher in cost than in Europe. By and large this is seen as due to there being too many veto points along with too many layers of regulation from federal, state and locality all of which cost money. The ability to come to a compromise at the legislative/executive level as is often done in other countries isn’t an option in the US. How much that has to do with federalism isn’t clear to me. It seems instead due to the way legislation was drafted. In theory there’s no reason simpler regulations that still protect the environment couldn’t be written. There’s just no political will for that - although one might argue that it would be easier to do that at a state level than federal level. Although the counter argument would be that states would simply deregulate and not worry about the environment. (Say California versus Texas) I’m not sure Peirce has much to say in all this since his focus is on truth and what works rather than these balances of powers. While it’s possible to read Peirce in terms of power (arguably that’s exactly what Derrida does) it seems relatively uncommon. (Usually for better or worse Foucault is the focus there) While I’m perhaps unduly pessimistic on the unnecessary expense and delays our particular regulatory scheme give us, there’s an argument for this from Peirce’s own common sensism and Burkeanism. That is the secular slowness you mention later in your post. Like you I worry that this is becoming a bigger and bigger problem even though I am overall very sympathetic to federalism. There are types of reform our system, as opposed to say a Parliamentary majority in Canada, are poorly suited to solve.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
