General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould all states be abolished? (i.e. end our federal system of government?)
I see three big reasons for rewriting our Constitution to end the notion of separate states:
1- That somebody could be treated vastly differently, depending on which state you happen to reside in, particularly in regard to criminal codes and voting rights/power, seems quite contrary to justice.
2- Our current system makes it more difficult to respond to national emergencies. Obvious case in point: this covid pandemic, where a country like South Korea could enact nationwide mandates without the interference of state governments.
3- Our system makes economic progress more difficult. Cases in point: giant water systems in China, modern high speed rail systems in Japan, ultra modern and vast construction projects in Dubai, Taiwan, Qatar, etc. (in this latest point our system of capitalism also is a major hindrance).
Mysterian
(4,587 posts)Lord So-And-So granted Parcel X to his buddy and Parcel Y to his other pal, etc. Now these weird freakin' land parcels are sovereign state governments. It would be a lot better if we had no states.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)with no federal government. I'm tired of people in other states determining my fate...in any way.
Goodheart
(5,324 posts)We're in the majority.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)We may have passed the point of irreconcilable differences,
pwb
(11,265 posts)when they are a danger to the rest. Maybe cut funding for reckless governing.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)If you're going to get rid of states then you'll have to have some other subdivision below the national level. Do you really want politicians from the opposite side of the country dictating your local issues?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)only a small percentage of residents would agree. Even most of the liberals who approve requiring state and local governments to basic standards set by our liberalism-based constitution wouldn't want that.
Of course centralized governments have some advantages, but also disadvantages. Both Russia and China are prone to odd famines and other little problems of mismanagement here and there. Their censored news can't keep all problems from being known. And, of course, there'd only be the presidency and central committee for a totalitarian fascist or oligarchical cabal to get control of. Not that that ever happens, of course, but speaking theoretically...
samnsara
(17,622 posts)...but Im from Washington State and I'm all for the Pacific Coast states to go on their own. Hell I even like the idea of Canada annexing us. More so when the former guy was prez.
Sneederbunk
(14,290 posts)abqtommy
(14,118 posts)Goodheart
(5,324 posts)Why so? There are many non-federalist yet still democratic countries in the world.
abqtommy
(14,118 posts)nation without a government is an anarchy. It's not an insinuation, it's a fact!
Goodheart
(5,324 posts)abqtommy
(14,118 posts)"what would we call it?". Sorry if you're offended but the definition of anarchy stands.
Of course former pRESIDENT guy would've been happy with a monarchy or
autocracy or fascist dictatorship. The anarchists have more in common with the fascists
than anybody else.
I'm not really a student of the best government, which I understand is a benevolent
monarchy/dictatorship. But I like my contribution of the word "Anarchia".
Goodheart
(5,324 posts)The places would still exist.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Hekate
(90,686 posts)...is pretty much a satellite of the US. If we turn our back, Taiwan will be swallowed up by China.
We have our troubles, but modeling ourselves after non-democracies is a bad idea.
Goodheart
(5,324 posts)France is not a federalist country.
Japan is not a federalist country, and a "monarchy" in name, only.
South Korea is not a federalist country.
All four that I've just mentioned are democracies, and have high standards of living and civil rights.