My fellow americans

[Jimmy Higgins]

that's racist

#notallstates

 

[ZiprHead]

No more states. Wow, talk about opening a can of worms there. Those would be sand worms from Arrakis.

I could see how it could save some money, one DMV or DOT, instead of 50 plus the federal. Total revamp of the constitution on down though.

 

[ksen]

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?

 

[prideandfall]

i think that for the US the concept of states in terms of cultural, economic, and bureaucratic territories makes sense, and a lot of this country's identity is tied into the regional differences in states, which is all fine.
however, the idea of different states being autonomous mini-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights or the fundamental tenets of human civilization is an utterly retarded and archaic notion that quite resoundingly stopped having any shred of modern day relevance after the one-two punch of the civil war and the onset of the industrial revolution.

i can see an argument being made for some measure of autonomy when it comes to things like local tax regulation or municipal law or the general way in which a given state conducts its day-to-day business, but in the 21st century "state's rights" is simply synonymous with "legalized persecution of a minority group", so i can't see any reasonable justification for its continued existence.

 

[bilby]

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).

That's an odd assumption. Why couldn't that power be transferred to local governments? Or some elements to local governments and some to the federal government? Why would you imagine that the transfer of power could only be to the federal level?

This same question has been asked here, and when it is mooted, there are usually some things that are suggested will be devolved to the local councils; For just one example, we already have federal, state and local roads, but if the states were scrapped, there is no reason to think that all of the current state roads would become federal highways; some could be better managed and maintained by the local councils, while others might be more sensibly managed by the feds.

 

[Duke Leto]

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?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o[/YOUTUBE]

 

[bilby]

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?

The risks of not separating the powers are huge - a single branch will likely become a dictatorship sooner rather than later.

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

That's a very good question. My home state has had a unicameral legislature since 1922, and the state was a byword for corruption in the 1970s and 1980s; Many observers put this down, in part, to the lack of an upper house. However other states do not seem to have been inoculated against corruption by their upper houses, so clearly there is more to it than that - and there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of hard evidence that bicameral legislatures are better or less corrupt than unicameral ones.

The idea of a bicameral legislature seems to stem from the British distaste for throwing away things that are no longer useful; The Lords used to run the country, and before them, the King did. When power shifted to the commons, neither monarchy nor peerage were discarded, but instead continued in a mostly ceremonial role. Bicameral legislatures outside the UK almost all take their form from the Westminster model, but this seems in most cases to be more a matter of 'if it's not broken don't fix it' than a considered decision with a basis in reason.

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.

Taxation is not a fundamental of government; In my country, taxes are (by constitutional law) raised by the federal government and distributed to the states; The states have very limited power to raise funds themselves. Local governments are able to charge landowners 'rates' based on the unimproved value of their land, but most of the state revenues (about 75%) come from taxes raised federally and then paid to the states by the federal government. Fines and document handling charges (such as 'Stamp Duty') are levied by the states, but are not a major contributor to total revenue, at around 6% of the total; Mining royalties (payments by mining companies for the minerals they extract) are about 7% of total revenue, and sales of government generated goods and services are about 11%.

By far the largest taxes here - income tax, and the GST (a 10% Value Added Tax) - go to the federal government.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

One would only expect that in the case where the problem states were in the majority.

 

[Bomb#20]

however, the idea of different states being autonomous mini-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights or the fundamental tenets of human civilization is an utterly retarded and archaic notion that quite resoundingly stopped having any shred of modern day relevance after the one-two punch of the civil war and the onset of the industrial revolution.

Is the idea of different countries being autonomous maxi-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights or the fundamental tenets of human civilization also an utterly retarded and archaic notion that quite resoundingly stopped having any shred of modern day relevance after the one-two punch of the 2nd World War and the onset of the computer revolution? If it isn't, why are states different from countries? If it is, do you think world government is a recipe for more civilized governmental behavior and better protection of human rights?

i can see an argument being made for some measure of autonomy when it comes to things like local tax regulation or municipal law or the general way in which a given state conducts its day-to-day business, but in the 21st century "state's rights" is simply synonymous with "legalized persecution of a minority group", so i can't see any reasonable justification for its continued existence.

The only right a state has is the right to a jury trial if somebody sues it for over $20. But assuming the feds should be allowed to just ignore the enumerated powers clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments and adopt an "expansive interpretation" of any and every legal theory that tends to increase centralized power, on the grounds that some local lord somewhere might decide to treat one of his subjects even worse than the current king currently intends to treat him, and accusing everybody who blows the whistle on the power grab of being a "States' Rights" stalking horse for bringing back Jim Crow laws, is intellectually and morally indefensible. If the USA didn't have states that are autonomous mini-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights and the fundamental tenets of human civilization, and allowed only the Federal government to have a say in such matters, then the United State of America would be a country with no legal medical marijuana dispensaries, it would be a country where there was nowhere a terminal cancer patient could go to to get help dying, and it would be a country where "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and some federal "OMG Defend Our Good Kind Of Marriages From The Gays! Act" was still the 21st century law of the land.

 

[dismal]

Is the idea of different countries being autonomous maxi-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights or the fundamental tenets of human civilization also an utterly retarded and archaic notion that quite resoundingly stopped having any shred of modern day relevance after the one-two punch of the 2nd World War and the onset of the computer revolution? If it isn't, why are states different from countries? If it is, do you think world government is a recipe for more civilized governmental behavior and better protection of human rights?

I think you're missing the point.

It's not enough to ban fracking, have universal healthcare, tax the crap out of millionaires, subsidize the bejeezus out of solar panels, build choo-choo trains everywhere etc in the state of Vermont or California because we need to force people in Alabama and Wyoming to do these things too.

But we can't export our values to other countries like Djibouti or Iran because that would be culturally insensitive and their values are just as good as ours.

This is because state boundaries on maps are dashed lines and national boundaries are solid lines.

Source:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/B...2!3m1!1s0x866f7f6bc3fc6519:0xb1df1a694856522c

 

[prideandfall]

Is the idea of different countries being autonomous maxi-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights or the fundamental tenets of human civilization also an utterly retarded and archaic notion that quite resoundingly stopped having any shred of modern day relevance after the one-two punch of the 2nd World War and the onset of the computer revolution? If it isn't, why are states different from countries? If it is, do you think world government is a recipe for more civilized governmental behavior and better protection of human rights?

all the countries of the world aren't bound into a concept of the United Countries of Earth, so the comparison is really invalid here.

If the USA didn't have states that are autonomous mini-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights and the fundamental tenets of human civilization, and allowed only the Federal government to have a say in such matters, then the United State of America would be a country with no legal medical marijuana dispensaries, it would be a country where there was nowhere a terminal cancer patient could go to to get help dying, and it would be a country where "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and some federal "OMG Defend Our Good Kind Of Marriages From The Gays! Act" was still the 21st century law of the land.

this assumes that absent state autonomy everything reverts to the federal government, with a current or expanded point of influence of national law - which i'll grant you is certainly one avenue that is reasonable to take, conversationally speaking, but isn't one that i (or anyone else i've seen in this thread) has advocated.

 

[Bomb#20]

all the countries of the world aren't bound into a concept of the United Countries of Earth, so the comparison is really invalid here.

Studio Executive: He needs pants.
Bobby Farrelly: Why do we have to put pants on the hedgehog? Yogi Bear didn't wear pants!
Studio Executive: Well this is a hedgehog.

this assumes that absent state autonomy everything reverts to the federal government, with a current or expanded point of influence of national law - which i'll grant you is certainly one avenue that is reasonable to take, conversationally speaking, but isn't one that i (or anyone else i've seen in this thread) has advocated.

So what are you advocating as to who it should be that gets whichever powers over basic human rights and the fundamental tenets of human civilization you're okay with separating from the federal government? Counties and cities that are autonomous micro-countries that can have their own ideas about basic human rights and the fundamental tenets of human civilization? Corporations and labor unions and paramilitaries and NGOs that are autonomous distributed person-sets that can have their own ideas about basic human rights and the fundamental tenets of human civilization? A non-toothless United Countries of Earth that's an autonomous planet that can have its own ideas about basic human rights and the fundamental tenets of human civilization?

 

[lpetrich]

It's not enough to ban fracking, have universal healthcare, tax the crap out of millionaires, subsidize the bejeezus out of solar panels, build choo-choo trains everywhere etc in the state of Vermont or California because we need to force people in Alabama and Wyoming to do these things too.

So you want the right to have your drinking water contaminated with fracking wastewater? The right to be denied healthcare coverage? The right to pay regressive taxes and reparations for rich people? The right to subsidize fossil fuels and not alternatives to them? The right to have your property turned into socialist roads?

 

[NobleSavage]

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.

The problem is when the Federal Government channels the money back to the states they use it as a bludgeon to get the states to fall in line. My state is blocking the Medicaid expansion of the ACA. Yes, it's completely stupid because the Federal Government will pay for it. However, I understand the Republican complaint: if we start taking the money, eventually the Feds will start putting strings on it. And once the state agrees, it's locked in forever. You think a state could ever give up their highway funds? Has any state ever tried that? Granted, I mostly agree with the Federal government; however, it's just a matter of time before I'm on the opposite side of some issue.