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.

• Protection of individual rights should be done on the most wide possible basis, Federal if possible. 
• Government powers should be devolved to state and local governments as much as possible. 

Here's my "radical" thought:

• Protection of individual rights should be done on the most wide possible basis, Federal if possible.
• Government powers should be devolved to state and local governments as much as possible.

Simple.

Restrain the portion of government that can hurt you as much as possible so that CA or TX or AL can't get away with something just because the voters there say it's cool. Petty tyrants exist, from the HOA level to the city council level to the state legislature level to the House of Representatives. But the bigger the population gets, the harder it is for them to exert their petty grudges/beliefs.

But the portion of government that DOES stuff should be as local as possible so that it actually responds to the unique local conditions of the people it serves based on their unique local needs. Need for government services might be very different in Cheyenne WY than in Seattle WA, so why should they be determined in DC?

Probably with individual rights.

Gov't powers on the other hand have been on a long march to being centralized for oh, just about 235 years now

Sure. That's a nice idea. Here's a great book explaining how that idea was eroded (by SCOTUS) over the past two centuries: https://a.co/d/0h3mriAo

Maybe it comes from living in a few different ones (and living in a couple places with borders of sorts), but the older I get, the more I find the fixation on states to be sort of silly. Most contain so much diversity that they’re only loosely a unified idea of a place.

I suppose that makes me more of a federalist. That and seeing enough state party machines to get the sense they somehow manage to be more egregious crooks than the feds.