The Federal Association does not compete with the National Association:

Free Markets do not compete with Slave Markets:

Freedom does not compete with Slavery:

Victims do not compete with Criminals:

Federal Association, Free Markets, Freedom, and Victims do not compete with those who enslave them. The idea is to choose better instead of worse, to share the idea, and then let the chips fall as they may.

Freedom runs from Slavery. Freedom defends against Slavery. Freedom does not compete, on an equal footing, with Slavery. Freedom rejects Slavery. Freedom is consumed by Slavery, one slave at a time, or all at once.

How does that work in reality?

Take for example the demand for health care. Take the demand for healthy people in the face of a hysterically promoted potentially deadly virus, and work out the reality of how Federal Association, Free Markets, Freedom, and Victims deal with that demand and the supply to meet that demand.

Demand: People who care about health, something worth something to somebody.

Supply: People who care about health, something worth something to somebody.

Is there a demand, at least for those who want health care?

Is there a supply, at least for those who want health care?

Does it work to force people to care about health care, or does force cause people to care more about being forced into something they don’t want to be forced into?

Does it work to allow people to care about health care, and allow those who care more to do so, and allow those who care less to do less?

What about a case where no one cares anymore, and a virus will kill everyone because no one cares?

Is it better for the last one who cares to force everyone else to care, or is it better to stop crushing out those feelings of care that are naturally occurring when people are free in liberty?

There is no competition, the winner is obvious before deciding to go onto either of the two paths.

One path reaches the goal: health care supplied to those who care about it.

The other path reaches the opposite goal: care for anything crushed out of the hearts and minds of everyone.

How does Federation versus Nationalism work for this demand for health care and the supply of health care in reality?

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins

"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."

So everyone in America is free from Wuhan Virus a short time ago.

No one in America cared to go and get health care for Wuhan Virus when it was not in America.

Then someone invaded America with the Wuhan Virus.

Who cares?

The one who first had it was probably wanting (caring about) getting health care. Why didn’t the Chinese National Dictators not Nuke Wuhan so as to end the virus before it spread?

Maybe they cared enough to care for the health of those in Wuhan too, or maybe people in Wuhan ran as fast as they could from an impending doom at the hands of people who obviously don’t care about health care.

What if half of all the United States (say 25 States) immediately closed all boarders from everywhere else in the world, and the other half of all the United States (the other 25 or so) did not take that drastic measure. None of the states cared enough to Nuke the one State where the first Wuhan Virus infected individual first contacted anyone in these United States, and the infected State didn’t fall on it’s own sword: nuke itself.

What if 25 serious smugglers, who happened to be infected, somehow managed to cross the boarders in each of the Locked Down States? Far fetched?