Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I've long been a promotor of states really experimenting and trying out all kinds of stuff in order to help identify what's best - in all areas.

But in pondering that today, I second guess myself.  I'm fearful each state, if given enough rope to do so, will possibly hang itself. 
And I can make examples from both extremes here as an argument against total state freedoms.
Do we really want Alabama to "Alabama" as much as it can?  I'd argue no.
It also wouldn't be good for California to be as 'California' as it can.
I'd argue Texas shouldn't Texas to the extreme, but I think it already is.

I think people forget that Federal reach acts as a sort of social and economic gravity, pulling each state back towards the middle. 
.

Another thought I had is to treat counties as we do states.  Maybe to avoid a future civil war between urban and rural, just have counties' rights be the ultimate law of the land.  That way, if you are unhappy with your county's politics, it's easier to move to a nearby county compared to moving entire states away.  Or you could drive over for services you want, but aren't available in your county.

This is where my head is at. 
Maybe we should understand that like the musket vs the machine gun, fixating on states' rights made sense when a state had 40,000 people in it.  But if it has 10 million.....yeah, that's a big difference. 

Obviously, on the national level, when anything is passed, it pisses off 150 million people. 
Okay, so at the state level, it's pissing off millions of people.
If we simply rolled it back to fixating on counties' rights, it's pissing off fewer and fewer people.  No, avoiding pissing people off isn't the most important thing, but it's and improvement from the vague to the specific.  Just as state-by-state is from the vague to the specific compared to national policy.

I also see no reason for either side of the aisle to disagree with this.  If you're obsessed with the tradition of fixating on state-by-state rights, that's fine.  But in terms of making life easier for the minority of any population (both sides), it'd be a plus. 
For AZ, its 3rd-largest county has the same population as the entire state did 100 years ago.  While we all laud the constitution a good document, we also have to vary things as time passes. 

When our country was formed, the biggest state was Virginia.  There were no trains yet.  No state had more than half a million people. 

Maybe we should take a look at the 10th amendment and update it for the times of a massive country by land, by population, and by modernity. 

The idea of Federalism at the county or municipal level can and absolutely does exist.  Laws vary, and probably more importantly, enforcement varies.  I deliberately moved out of Austin and into my suburb city in part because I vastly prefer the way laws are written and enforced outside of the city.  Austin proper has become an absolute nut house, and stupid voters keep on voting in mayors and council members that only make things worse.

I voted with my feet, and you can too.

Yup, moving state to state is another way to do it, and is a more classic example of the topic.  But you can do the same just switching counties or municipalities. 

We don't need broad national laws governing our every day existence.  People aren't the same, don't think the same, and were never supposed to. 

We could have moved anywhere outside of Chicago metro and been in a red county, with few exceptions. We lived in a very conservative suburb, but we still felt the pain.

Chicago runs Illinois and that is never going to change.