![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
Why would a “unitary” state be better?
Look at the French and th 15,000 who died in their heat wave.
Look at the hundreds of thousands who died in the tsunami?
Ditto for earthquakes in Iran, floods in China, etc.
Non-federal states arguably do worse than our federal system. There’s no sign they do better.
Theories?
1. It’s a natural disaster. As King Canute couldn’t make the waves obey, government does not command the elements.
2. Government is only marginally competent to deliver the mail, etc. No wonder a huge disaster is too much for it.
(Iraq side note: There may have been many bungles in Iraq, but compared to other major wars, it’s been a model of efficiency.)
3. As many commentators have noted, New York responded well to 9/11. With federalism, you increase the odds of having a good response, for those places that aren’t nicknamed The Big Easy.
4. Non federal states are even more incompetent, as there’s no “competition” or alternative.
From Jim Tynen’s blog:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jt
