My fellow americans

[ksen]

Do we actually need "states"?

Honestly, they seem to cause more problems than they solve.

 

[Axulus]

Do we actually need "states"?

Honestly, they seem to cause more problems than they solve.

Yes - if you don't like the state you are in (it's a problem state in your opinion), my suggestion would be to move out of it. Isn't it much better to have problem states that you can move out of than a problem federal government for which there is almost no escape? Not only that, but a central bureaucracy that governments too large an area becomes unresponsive to local needs with its "one size fits all" approach, reducing efficiency of governance.

You wouldn't propose abolishing local city governments and having them run by staff selected by the federal government, would you?

 

[ksen]

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move from and to.

 

[Axulus]

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move to and from.

But the power the states currently have would be transferred to the federal government. That power could be used to create a problem country. What was once a problem localized to a particular state, from which one can move out of, is now a problem that the entire country has, for which there is almost no option to move out of (other countries have burdensome restrictions to move there, restrictions which the majority of people are unable to overcome).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

if we get rid of the states then we would have to change our name. Ask any married couple what a hassle that is, or anyone who has adopted a child. Now expand that out to the whole country.

Just the visit to the DMV Alone....

OY VEY!!!!!

 

[ksen]

OY VEY!!!!!

that's racist

- - - Updated - - -

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move to and from.

But the power the states currently have would be transferred to the federal government. That power could be used to create a problem country. What was once a problem localized to a particular state, from which one can move out of, is now a problem that the entire country has, for which there is almost no option to move out of (other countries have burdensome restrictions to move there, restrictions which the majority of people are unable to overcome).

Do you have any reason to think that'd be the case in 21st century america?

 

[NobleSavage]

It's a good idea to have government as close by as possible. It's a lot easier for me to get to the State Capitol and stir up shit than go to DC. Power really needs to be split up as much as possible. Federalism is good, IMO.

Do we really need three branches of government? It would be a lot easier, more efficient, etc. to just have one. Do we really need bicameral legislatures?

My answer will always be yes, even when it means I won't get what I want. I'd rather pay 50% of my taxes to my State.

 

[Axulus]

that's racist

- - - Updated - - -

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move to and from.

But the power the states currently have would be transferred to the federal government. That power could be used to create a problem country. What was once a problem localized to a particular state, from which one can move out of, is now a problem that the entire country has, for which there is almost no option to move out of (other countries have burdensome restrictions to move there, restrictions which the majority of people are unable to overcome).

Do you have any reason to think that'd be the case in 21st century america?

Why not? If there are problem states, why wouldn't those problems be more likely to affect the entire country if the power used to create the problems was transferred to the federal government?

 

[ksen]

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move to and from.

But the power the states currently have would be transferred to the federal government. That power could be used to create a problem country. What was once a problem localized to a particular state, from which one can move out of, is now a problem that the entire country has, for which there is almost no option to move out of (other countries have burdensome restrictions to move there, restrictions which the majority of people are unable to overcome).

Do you have any reason to think that'd be the case in 21st century america?

Why not? If there are problem states, why wouldn't those problems be more likely to affect the entire country if the power used to create the problems was transferred to the federal government?

What sort of problems that are currently only a state wide would potentially get transferred nationwide if the states did not exist?

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think we may be evolving towards a more local set of city/state like governments anyway. Fuzzier lines, I think. I mean, with regards to the federal government, it really redistributes funding back to the states, where they decide where to use it anyway. The problems I see though, is that it seems to take a strong federal government to enforce rights and equality of any sort (at least in our system).

It's easy to say "Well if you don't like your state then move." Unfortunately, the most likely people that would want to move are usually also the people that are least likely to leave, because the system is holding them down in the first place.

 

[Axulus]

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move to and from.

But the power the states currently have would be transferred to the federal government. That power could be used to create a problem country. What was once a problem localized to a particular state, from which one can move out of, is now a problem that the entire country has, for which there is almost no option to move out of (other countries have burdensome restrictions to move there, restrictions which the majority of people are unable to overcome).

Do you have any reason to think that'd be the case in 21st century america?

Why not? If there are problem states, why wouldn't those problems be more likely to affect the entire country if the power used to create the problems was transferred to the federal government?

What sort of problems that are currently only a state wide would potentially get transferred nationwide if the states did not exist?

You were the one who said that states create more problems. What kind of problems were you referring to?

 

[Sarpedon]

Throughout the world, there are lots of people rebelling against their country, demanding independence. Quite often the best compromise is granting regional autonomy.

We already have regional autonomy. Why give it up?

 

[Axulus]

I think we may be evolving towards a more local set of city/state like governments anyway. Fuzzier lines, I think. I mean, with regards to the federal government, it really redistributes funding back to the states, where they decide where to use it anyway. The problems I see though, is that it seems to take a strong federal government to enforce rights and equality of any sort (at least in our system).

It's easy to say "Well if you don't like your state then move." Unfortunately, the most likely people that would want to move are usually also the people that are least likely to leave, because the system is holding them down in the first place.

Yeah, I think the main function of the federal government should be as a rights enforcement entity and to also deal with issues affecting all the states - national defense, international relations, pollution control, common currency, etc.

Leave the rest to the individual states for them to decide, and then let people freely move to which state best suits their preferences.

 

[ksen]

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move to and from.

But the power the states currently have would be transferred to the federal government. That power could be used to create a problem country. What was once a problem localized to a particular state, from which one can move out of, is now a problem that the entire country has, for which there is almost no option to move out of (other countries have burdensome restrictions to move there, restrictions which the majority of people are unable to overcome).

Do you have any reason to think that'd be the case in 21st century america?

Why not? If there are problem states, why wouldn't those problems be more likely to affect the entire country if the power used to create the problems was transferred to the federal government?

What sort of problems that are currently only a state wide would potentially get transferred nationwide if the states did not exist?

You were the one who said that states create more problems. What kind of problems were you referring to?

Mostly seeing my socialist agenda adopted.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OY VEY!

that's racist

How would that be racist? Are you suggesting that Athena's suggesting that DMV experience is caused by Jews?

 

[ksen]

It was a joke buddy!

 

[Keith&Co.]

It was a joke buddy!

Ah.
But jokes are supposed to have a little speed bump in the chain of thought.
Not just go over a cliff.

 

[dismal]

If there were no states there wouldn't be "bad states" and "good states" to have to move from and to.

States are the laboratories of democracy. Just think, the leftists can take a state like Vermont or California and make it a shining showplace for the rest of the country to follow.

Like Detroit did for cities. Affordable housing as far as the eye can see.

Mostly seeing my socialist agenda adopted.

See, just need to stop worrying about imposing your leftist dreams on people in the ungrateful states who don't want it and focus on imposing them on the people of Vermont and California. Everybody wins.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It was a joke buddy!

Ah.
But jokes are supposed to have a little speed bump in the chain of thought.
Not just go over a cliff.

Unless I'm mistaken, it was a reference to the Everything Wrong With ... series of videos.

 

[KeepTalking]

Do we actually need "states"?

Honestly, they seem to cause more problems than they solve.

Of course we need states, how else would we determine previous inputs?