"united" states

[Dr Satan]

This sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Sort of like non-alcoholic beer.
Why do we have states?

[DeathvadeR]

1. The Real Question is Why do we have a.......

Federal Government????

[Deja Q]

4. To make sure we remain united?

:shrug:

[EastofEdon]

2. Look into the "Iroquois Confederacy"

and the story of the "Peace Maker" to understand better the roots of this philosophy/system.

[Warpy]

3. In an ideal United States

...many of the things we depend upon as a society would be controlled locally, at the state level, and close enough for us to cause change when those things were mishandled. The Feds would be there to create basic standards and to enforce the laws needed to keep everybody at the state level both humane and honest, and to protect the citizenry in time of attack or natural disaster.

Let's face it, more local control is a good thing, since most of us would have a hard time marching on Washington DC in times of turmoil but can usually make it to our state capitals. Having the Federal government oversee things like defense, insure our basic civil rights as citizens, and create the standards for state governments to adhere to is also a great idea. 51 small, weak states, all standing alone, would be a disaster; as would 51 plutocratic fiefdoms without a central authority to resolve squabbles between them. This was tried already, and it didn't work.

Every larger country has subdivided power and authority, whether it's by parish, canton, shire, province, or state. We just happen to call them states.

[Selwynn]

5. I don't agree but let's discuss it, because I don't know....

Ok, so everybody believes that local control is better than federal control, but I don't think I agree.

For one thing, the reason why this is such a big part of the republican agenda (state control, deregulation, etc.) is because state control is even better for corporations and even worse for the working class.

For another thing, I don't want to live in fifty-mini countries, I want to live in one country. Gun laws should be gun laws across the board. Health care should be health care across the board. Education standards should really leave no child behind (not just say the phrase) across the board. Legal rights should be identical across the board. Rules for coproations and taxes should be the same across the board. I believe that it is devisive to keep thinking of ourselves as person's of states first, rather than persons of one united nation. I think "states rights" is frankly, completely divisive to a spirit of unity.

Must their be localized branches/chapters of national government? Absolutely. But our "state" system is much more like a confederation of mini-countries than one united nation.

I am reminded of an episode of the West Wing called "Game On." Bartlett is debating his opponent for the Election. His opponent is going on about "states rights." Bartlett responds that there are times when we are fifty individual states and there are times when we are one country with national needs, and the reason we know this is true is because Florida didn't defeat Germany in world war II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall to wall, and that's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Florida got 12.6 billion dollars in federal money last year from Nebraskans, and Virginias and New Yorkers and Alaskans and so on - 12.6 billion. My question for you is this: Can we have it back please?

:)

What do you think?