A couple of questions. How are the states united if Washington wields no power over them? What happens when a state decides to ignore the constitutionl? Say, the government of Indiana decides to brings back racial segregation.
Cecil, these are important questions. If states reclaim power, what holds them together? And what prevents them from violating fundamental rights?
———————————————————————————————————
1. How Are the States United if Washington Wields No Power Over Them?
The same way they always have been—through mutual interest, economic interdependence, and legal agreements.The federal government has never been the glue holding states together—it has been the enforcer of centralized policy. States are already bound by:
The Constitution, which still applies unless a state formally exits the Union.
Interstate compacts, legally binding agreements between states on trade, infrastructure, and legal cooperation.
Economic necessity, as states rely on one another for commerce, labor, and shared industries.
The Radical Federalist model doesn’t eliminate coordination between states—it removes unnecessary federal interference while keeping the essential structures that allow cooperation. It strengthens state power without severing the ties that bind them. In fact, Radical Federalism argues for multiple redundant, overlapping layers of governance, including state compacts which make reproduce muxh of what the states currently rely on Washingto to coordinate—thing the states together more closely, not less.
——————————————————————————————
2. What Happens When a State Ignores the Constitution?
If Indiana (or any state) tried to reinstate racial segregation, it would face the same consequences it would today:
Its own citizens would resist. The Civil Rights Movement wasn’t won because of Washington alone—it was won because people fought in the streets, in the courts, and in their communities.
The courts would intervene. Even in a radically federalist system, states would still be subject to constitutional challenges.
Other states could take action. In the same way states today can refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws, they could also refuse to cooperate with states violating civil rights. Economic and legal pressure would be immense.
The real danger of state-led injustice is not greater than the danger of federally imposed injustice. Washington itself has overseen segregation, redlining, mass incarceration, and countless other systemic abuses—and it was state and local resistance that forced change.
———————————————————————————————————
3. Why are we advocating for Radical Federalism?
You didn’t ask this, but it’s important to keep in mind the problem which Radical Federalism seeks to solve: a captured Washington being weaponized against the very things you mention—against minority rights and social justice, and against rule-of-law, constitutional limitations on power, and, very possibly, outright in favor of dissolution and the establishment of so-called "network states"—private fiefdoms over which the Oligarchy may reign as kings as federalism turns to fuedalism.
That is the immediate and terrifying threat—but it is also, we argue, an end-state we were always headed towards: the old federalism allowed unchecked consolidation of power (both political and economic) and power distorts, power bends space around itself, power draws more power in like a blackhole until, like spacetime, the fabric of society is torn asunder. Radical Federalism argues that the only prophylactic is to guarantee that instead power be distributed.
———————————————————————————————————
The bottom line? The Constitution remains, but so does the responsibility of the people to defend their rights—not to rely on Washington to do it for them.
Thanks for the detailed and well-reasoned reply. Your arguments about internal resistance are persuasive, but I'm wary of states being emboldened to form coalitions specifically with the purpose of oppressing some portion of their populace. They already are. I'm thinking about draconian abortion restrictions in light of the overturning of Roe v Wade. I'm thinking about the targeting of trans people. But I'm afraid of something worse, like that one time we ended up in a civil war.
We are in agreement that there is a great power imbalance between the components of the American system. It is painfully evident that the federal government has been hijacked, that it was always vulnerable to hijacking, and that this vulnerability paired with disproportionate power poses an existential threat to the republic. I'm not quite convinced by the thesis that the antidote is to instead flip the imbalance in favor of the states. Unless we're prepared to accept the eventuality of states becoming sovereign nations.
I appreciate your thought and concern—these are discussions we need to be having if we are to have something better after we successfully resist. What we have learned is that we cannot rely on top-down enforcement of our values (even moral imperatives), because the machinery of that enforcement can always be captured, and those who do not share our values will be more ruthless in the applicarion of their enforcement, in securing that machinery in the first place, and in ensuring the survival of their repression.
The liberal belief that a majority of citizens would embrace liberal values and that this was proof against tyranny now seems a comforting falsehood.
So, where does that leave us? We cannot solve the problem of eradicating all evil and all repression everywhere and forever, I’m afraid. If I told you I had an answer for that, I hope you wouldn’t believe me—anyone that does is selling you a short path to their own empowerment, as we have seen in the recent election.
Instead, I can say that robustness, resilience, humans, and community need to take center stage; that small communities with safety valves to escape repression and strong ties to many and diverse communities with distributed governance, distributed power, opt-ins and mechanisms for "load-rebalancing" of that power can salvage what did work for getting us to where we were, still provide safety valves for dissidents and the disaffected, all while protecting against a winner-takes-all catastrophe and the alienation inherent in the dissolution of the community, and make renewal significantly easier. Do these things sound sensible? We have a series of articles written, but what is going on—right now—even as I type—has pushed those posts back a bit.
Tomorrow morning we won’t talk, much, about Radical Federalism—we will talk about what our opposite—the dissolutionists and the hegemonists, the oligarchs, they-that-would-be-kings—have been up to, and where they are going. But I owe you all a piece on Radical Federalism for Cities, and for the communities in those cities, and a final series on how we might build something more lasting beyond our immediate needs. I hope you’ll find it inspiring—and I hope you, and our other readers, will keep challenging us, inspiring us, and help us build something even better than we’ve imagined.
PS Apologies for what I am certain are some uncaught typos—I’d send it through a proofing step, but I am away from the usual setup right now and wanted to get back to you right away.
Victor, thanks for taking the time to present another well-reasoned argument. I'm more receptive to RF conceptually, knowing there's more to discuss around creating more resilient, distributed systems at all levels beyond state government. At least I think I understand it a bit better.
It helps me at least imagine a way forward, wherein every layer of state government (e.g. county, municipality, district, etc) repeats the same pattern of decentralized power. They would act as checks on the state government much like states would act as checks on the federal government, and not the other way around.
I look forward to the further exploration of these ideas.
The response builds on what we've been talking about—distributed governance, communities, overlapping layers, the vision of what comes after the current era. It presents our strongest answer to how we can build something which reinforces and supports civil rights and civil liberties. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Interesting idea, but as a Minnesotan, ND doesn't seem to be much of a leader in the things we'd want a state to fund, so I'm not sure how to think about it.
I seem to have missed your above post from 7 days ago,—triuy sorry for the belated response.
You bring up a fair point—we talk about North Dakota’s public bank because it’s a rare example of a state keeping financial control local, but that doesn’t mean Minnesota should model itself after North Dakota in any broader sense. The real question is: what could a public bank do for Minnesota?
A state-run bank wouldn’t just be about financial independence from Washington—it would also be a tool for local investment on Minnesota’s own terms. Some possibilities:
• Funding infrastructure without relying on Wall Street lenders. Instead of taking on debt at high interest rates, Minnesota could finance roads, transit, and clean energy projects itself.
• Providing low-cost loans to small businesses and co-ops. North Dakota’s public bank helps local businesses access credit—Minnesota could take that further, using a public bank to invest in worker-owned businesses, community land trusts, and local development that prioritizes people over profits.
• Shielding state funds from political retaliation. If the federal government threatens to withhold money over policy disagreements, a state with its own financial reserves is much harder to pressure.
But maybe the better question is—what would you want Minnesota to be able to fund, without federal interference or corporate strings attached? If the state had a public bank, where should that money go?
A couple of questions. How are the states united if Washington wields no power over them? What happens when a state decides to ignore the constitutionl? Say, the government of Indiana decides to brings back racial segregation.
Cecil, these are important questions. If states reclaim power, what holds them together? And what prevents them from violating fundamental rights?
———————————————————————————————————
1. How Are the States United if Washington Wields No Power Over Them?
The same way they always have been—through mutual interest, economic interdependence, and legal agreements.The federal government has never been the glue holding states together—it has been the enforcer of centralized policy. States are already bound by:
The Constitution, which still applies unless a state formally exits the Union.
Interstate compacts, legally binding agreements between states on trade, infrastructure, and legal cooperation.
Economic necessity, as states rely on one another for commerce, labor, and shared industries.
The Radical Federalist model doesn’t eliminate coordination between states—it removes unnecessary federal interference while keeping the essential structures that allow cooperation. It strengthens state power without severing the ties that bind them. In fact, Radical Federalism argues for multiple redundant, overlapping layers of governance, including state compacts which make reproduce muxh of what the states currently rely on Washingto to coordinate—thing the states together more closely, not less.
——————————————————————————————
2. What Happens When a State Ignores the Constitution?
If Indiana (or any state) tried to reinstate racial segregation, it would face the same consequences it would today:
Its own citizens would resist. The Civil Rights Movement wasn’t won because of Washington alone—it was won because people fought in the streets, in the courts, and in their communities.
The courts would intervene. Even in a radically federalist system, states would still be subject to constitutional challenges.
Other states could take action. In the same way states today can refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws, they could also refuse to cooperate with states violating civil rights. Economic and legal pressure would be immense.
The real danger of state-led injustice is not greater than the danger of federally imposed injustice. Washington itself has overseen segregation, redlining, mass incarceration, and countless other systemic abuses—and it was state and local resistance that forced change.
———————————————————————————————————
3. Why are we advocating for Radical Federalism?
You didn’t ask this, but it’s important to keep in mind the problem which Radical Federalism seeks to solve: a captured Washington being weaponized against the very things you mention—against minority rights and social justice, and against rule-of-law, constitutional limitations on power, and, very possibly, outright in favor of dissolution and the establishment of so-called "network states"—private fiefdoms over which the Oligarchy may reign as kings as federalism turns to fuedalism.
That is the immediate and terrifying threat—but it is also, we argue, an end-state we were always headed towards: the old federalism allowed unchecked consolidation of power (both political and economic) and power distorts, power bends space around itself, power draws more power in like a blackhole until, like spacetime, the fabric of society is torn asunder. Radical Federalism argues that the only prophylactic is to guarantee that instead power be distributed.
———————————————————————————————————
The bottom line? The Constitution remains, but so does the responsibility of the people to defend their rights—not to rely on Washington to do it for them.
—VH
Thanks for the detailed and well-reasoned reply. Your arguments about internal resistance are persuasive, but I'm wary of states being emboldened to form coalitions specifically with the purpose of oppressing some portion of their populace. They already are. I'm thinking about draconian abortion restrictions in light of the overturning of Roe v Wade. I'm thinking about the targeting of trans people. But I'm afraid of something worse, like that one time we ended up in a civil war.
We are in agreement that there is a great power imbalance between the components of the American system. It is painfully evident that the federal government has been hijacked, that it was always vulnerable to hijacking, and that this vulnerability paired with disproportionate power poses an existential threat to the republic. I'm not quite convinced by the thesis that the antidote is to instead flip the imbalance in favor of the states. Unless we're prepared to accept the eventuality of states becoming sovereign nations.
I appreciate your thought and concern—these are discussions we need to be having if we are to have something better after we successfully resist. What we have learned is that we cannot rely on top-down enforcement of our values (even moral imperatives), because the machinery of that enforcement can always be captured, and those who do not share our values will be more ruthless in the applicarion of their enforcement, in securing that machinery in the first place, and in ensuring the survival of their repression.
The liberal belief that a majority of citizens would embrace liberal values and that this was proof against tyranny now seems a comforting falsehood.
So, where does that leave us? We cannot solve the problem of eradicating all evil and all repression everywhere and forever, I’m afraid. If I told you I had an answer for that, I hope you wouldn’t believe me—anyone that does is selling you a short path to their own empowerment, as we have seen in the recent election.
Instead, I can say that robustness, resilience, humans, and community need to take center stage; that small communities with safety valves to escape repression and strong ties to many and diverse communities with distributed governance, distributed power, opt-ins and mechanisms for "load-rebalancing" of that power can salvage what did work for getting us to where we were, still provide safety valves for dissidents and the disaffected, all while protecting against a winner-takes-all catastrophe and the alienation inherent in the dissolution of the community, and make renewal significantly easier. Do these things sound sensible? We have a series of articles written, but what is going on—right now—even as I type—has pushed those posts back a bit.
Tomorrow morning we won’t talk, much, about Radical Federalism—we will talk about what our opposite—the dissolutionists and the hegemonists, the oligarchs, they-that-would-be-kings—have been up to, and where they are going. But I owe you all a piece on Radical Federalism for Cities, and for the communities in those cities, and a final series on how we might build something more lasting beyond our immediate needs. I hope you’ll find it inspiring—and I hope you, and our other readers, will keep challenging us, inspiring us, and help us build something even better than we’ve imagined.
PS Apologies for what I am certain are some uncaught typos—I’d send it through a proofing step, but I am away from the usual setup right now and wanted to get back to you right away.
Victor, thanks for taking the time to present another well-reasoned argument. I'm more receptive to RF conceptually, knowing there's more to discuss around creating more resilient, distributed systems at all levels beyond state government. At least I think I understand it a bit better.
It helps me at least imagine a way forward, wherein every layer of state government (e.g. county, municipality, district, etc) repeats the same pattern of decentralized power. They would act as checks on the state government much like states would act as checks on the federal government, and not the other way around.
I look forward to the further exploration of these ideas.
@Cecil: Since our conversation we've been poking at a draft article on Radical Federalism and Civil Rights—kept that simmering on the backburner until the right time. Now is that time. We've posted it here: https://theradicalfederalist.substack.com/p/radical-federalism-and-civil-rights
The response builds on what we've been talking about—distributed governance, communities, overlapping layers, the vision of what comes after the current era. It presents our strongest answer to how we can build something which reinforces and supports civil rights and civil liberties. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
—VH
Interesting idea, but as a Minnesotan, ND doesn't seem to be much of a leader in the things we'd want a state to fund, so I'm not sure how to think about it.
Jeremy,
I seem to have missed your above post from 7 days ago,—triuy sorry for the belated response.
You bring up a fair point—we talk about North Dakota’s public bank because it’s a rare example of a state keeping financial control local, but that doesn’t mean Minnesota should model itself after North Dakota in any broader sense. The real question is: what could a public bank do for Minnesota?
A state-run bank wouldn’t just be about financial independence from Washington—it would also be a tool for local investment on Minnesota’s own terms. Some possibilities:
• Funding infrastructure without relying on Wall Street lenders. Instead of taking on debt at high interest rates, Minnesota could finance roads, transit, and clean energy projects itself.
• Providing low-cost loans to small businesses and co-ops. North Dakota’s public bank helps local businesses access credit—Minnesota could take that further, using a public bank to invest in worker-owned businesses, community land trusts, and local development that prioritizes people over profits.
• Shielding state funds from political retaliation. If the federal government threatens to withhold money over policy disagreements, a state with its own financial reserves is much harder to pressure.
But maybe the better question is—what would you want Minnesota to be able to fund, without federal interference or corporate strings attached? If the state had a public bank, where should that money go?
—VH