States Rights: What do you think?

[Autonomous Titoists]

I wish the US would break up into different countries and essentially operate as an EU.

The Eu is god awful. we should just decentralize our shitty government. Make different areas of the country responsible for themselves, and if war breaks out between 2 countries we can have a very simple solution of not entering their damn war. Problem solved, politicians blow, and I'm flagged by the FBI

[Nervium]

It's garbage.

[Ostroeuropa]

Don't see a problem with devolution of economic power. Makes a good deal of sense.
Civil rights though? Fuck that.
Rights are rights regardless of geographic location.

[Ifreann]

I wish the US would break up into different countries and essentially operate as an EU.

The Eu is god awful. we should just decentralize our shitty government. Make different areas of the country responsible for themselves, and if war breaks out between 2 countries we can have a very simple solution of not entering their damn war.

That's not a solution. That's ignoring the problem.

[European Socialist Republic]

I see it as a code word for "preventing people we don't like from having the same rights as anyone else without the federal government being able to stop us".

[Valica]

Speaking as an American...

States' rights are a joke and are only detrimental to the union.
I firmly believe that the federal government should make laws and states should not.
Penalties and regulations should be uniform from California to Maine.

The only reason we should have states is for voting purposes.
County votes go to state representatives, representatives vote for or against national laws alongside other representatives.
And in that sense, there should be 1.25x to 1.5x more states. California is just too big for state-wide elections to accurately represent the population.

"What about abortion and pot?!"
What about it? Let the representatives vote and if we can't reach a definitive victory on either side, take it to SCOTUS.

It makes no sense that one state would have a different age of consent than another.
Or that the license plates would be on the front in one state (CA) as opposed to being on the back in the rest.

States don't have rights. They are just borders around land that a local government can choose to build shit on.
State governments should not focus on making or working on laws, they should focus on job programs, infrastructure, and building up their economy.

To build on this, if you read my sig, you would see that I am for a one-world government.

I believe that my idea for America could apply to the entire planet. Regulations and laws that are enforced globally.
It would save the entire planet a lot of hassle and would make enforcing laws much easier.

[Big Jim P]

That is precisely what I am doing and why when I leave New York.

Yeah, I bet the state of New York is oppressing the shit out of you.

They unduly restrict a citizens Second Amendment rights. They are also over-priced, over-taxed and over-regulated. I could go on, but you all have heard it before, and it is almost bedtime.

[Nova Sumeria]

I fully support States Rights, and I think the overreaching Federal Government is to blame for a lot of the problems of the US today.

Everyone's talking about how "We tried that in the Articles of Confederation". No. The Articles of Confederation was a bare-bones post-war agreement that later proved insufficient in the face of raids by the Barbary Coast Pirates and an economic crisis.

The way the United States is supposed to work is that it is, effectively, a confederation of 50 independent nations with the Federal government acting only for foreign diplomacy, war and national defense, and maybe some nation-wide projects like the Interstate system and the Space program.

What this does is put more power in the hands of you, the voter. The politicians actually making the decisions on things like law, crime, education, the environment, welfare, etc are much closer to you and can more easily be held accountable for their actions in, say, a corruption scandal. They are easier to vote out, simply because more people care about the smaller local elections and will scrutinize their decisions and mistakes more carefully, ending the atrociously high re-election rate for blatantly corrupt politicians we have now.

If you don't like how things are where you live, it's your duty to goddamn change it. A Democratic Republic cannot work if most of its Citizens sit around complaining about how bad the political system is and then doing absolutely nothing about it. Bringing the elections closer to home puts more power in the hands of the individual voter, taking it away from the government, but we all know the sage words of Uncle Ben on this subject: With great power comes great responsibility.

If you want to live in a free country, you can't rely on whoever happens to be in office to have your best interest in mind. Or worse, simply view the entire system with total apathy. If you are to have the rights of a Citizen of the Republic, you damn well need to accept the responsibilities of being a Citizen of the Republic.

Now, before anyone says that this system would never work, let me direct you to an example of exactly this system working: Switzerland. You know, that one European country that "balkanized" and collapsed into civil war because their system of government was totally unworkable. Wouldn't it be crazy if they were a highly successful, prosperous nation and one of the world financial centers?

[Twilight Imperium]

I fully support States Rights, and I think the overreaching Federal Government is to blame for a lot of the problems of the US today.

Everyone's talking about how "We tried that in the Articles of Confederation". No. The Articles of Confederation was a bare-bones post-war agreement that later proved insufficient in the face of raids by the Barbary Coast Pirates and an economic crisis.

The way the United States is supposed to work

Lemme just stop you right here. If it's "supposed" to work that way, then why has everyone including the Founding Fathers done their level best to keep it from working that way?

I do like your point about activism though, if more people would realize that we'd be in a better place.

[Kelinfort]

Yeah, I bet the state of New York is oppressing the shit out of you.

They unduly restrict a citizens Second Amendment rights. They are also over-priced, over-taxed and over-regulated. I could go on, but you all have heard it before, and it is almost bedtime.

One could make the case Texas (or any southern state for that matter) underegulates and underfunds their programs...which is probably why poverty rates in the South and obesity rates are sky high.

Pick your poison, I guess.

[Neutraligon]

Define state's rights first.

I think that more often then not the federal government needs to create a framework from which the state can work with.

[Ifreann]

I fully support States Rights, and I think the overreaching Federal Government is to blame for a lot of the problems of the US today.

Everyone's talking about how "We tried that in the Articles of Confederation". No. The Articles of Confederation was a bare-bones post-war agreement that later proved insufficient in the face of raids by the Barbary Coast Pirates and an economic crisis.

The way the United States is supposed to work is that it is, effectively, a confederation of 50 independent nations with the Federal government acting only for foreign diplomacy, war and national defense, and maybe some nation-wide projects like the Interstate system and the Space program.

What this does is put more power in the hands of...

The states. Because that's the entire point. To give power to the states so they can violate the Constitution and the rights the people are guaranteed by it without interference from the federal government.

[Nova Sumeria]

Lemme just stop you right here. If it's "supposed" to work that way, then why has everyone including the Founding Fathers done their level best to keep it from working that way?

Define "everyone". The creation of a strong central government for the new United States was extremely controversial. The people called the "Founding fathers" were split over whether a new government was needed and what it should be. The Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, notable for his utter disdain for the concept of democracy and advocating an American monarch, ultimately won out in large part due to the aforementioned Barbary pirates. However, they were adamantly opposed by the Anti-Federalists, who claimed that a strong central government would be too hard for the people to keep under control, and without the check of strong, sovereign states would grow into a bureaucratic tyranny.

Concerns over a strong central government, in fact, lead to the creation of the Bill of Rights, without which many delegates would have refused to sign their support for the new Constitution. There were objections, on the grounds that a list of enumerated rights might be later interpreted as an exclusive list, instead of every power not specifically given to the Federal government being automatically reserved for the people of the United States. However, the majority insisted that without such a list of absolute and essential rights the new Federal government would too easily grow into tyranny.

Aside from the founders, it is in the nature of governments to accrue more power for themselves at the expense of the people. Large national governments are far harder for citizen activists to control, and politicians safer in their positions when the people must push against the full weight of a national bureaucracy to effect real change. It is in the best interests of Congressmen that they continue making all the real decisions, and of other national politicians to keep public perception of their position as high and lofty as possible. Further, the two-party dynamic is more easily reinforced in larger elections, the larger the numbers involved and the more serious the position the more easily people can be convinced to vote for parties (Gods Own Party/The Peoples Party) over individual candidates and be less critical of those candidates groomed by other career politicians to "represent" them.

[The Nuclear Fist]

They unduly restrict a citizens Second Amendment rights. They are also over-priced, over-taxed and over-regulated. I could go on, but you all have heard it before, and it is almost bedtime.

One could make the case Texas (or any southern state for that matter) underegulates and underfunds their programs...which is probably why poverty rates in the South and obesity rates are sky high.

Pick your poison, I guess.

Texas also doesn't allow same sex marriages. I'll take fewer guns (even if it means giving up my own) and paying a higher tax rate over being a second class citizen.

But then again I'm a rational person.

[Nova Sumeria]

I fully support States Rights, and I think the overreaching Federal Government is to blame for a lot of the problems of the US today.

Everyone's talking about how "We tried that in the Articles of Confederation". No. The Articles of Confederation was a bare-bones post-war agreement that later proved insufficient in the face of raids by the Barbary Coast Pirates and an economic crisis.

The way the United States is supposed to work is that it is, effectively, a confederation of 50 independent nations with the Federal government acting only for foreign diplomacy, war and national defense, and maybe some nation-wide projects like the Interstate system and the Space program.

What this does is put more power in the hands of...

The states. Because that's the entire point. To give power to the states so they can violate the Constitution and the rights the people are guaranteed by it without interference from the federal government.

So the NSA spying, CIA Torture blacksites, Patriot Act, and the proposed and narrowly defeated CISPA/SOPA clones were all states initiatives? State governments are more easily controlled by their citizens, plain and simple. It takes fewer voters to kick out unreliable politicians, barrier of entry for candidates with actual integrity is lower, and smaller governments are easier to scrutinize and monitor for corruption. That was the entire point of my post.

[Distruzio]

That is precisely what I am doing and why when I leave New York.

Yeah, I bet the state of New York is oppressing the shit out of you.

Suppression isn't oppression, Iffy.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Yeah, I bet the state of New York is oppressing the shit out of you.

Suppression isn't oppression, Iffy.

Did that have anything really to do with what either of them were talking about?

[Greed and Death]

I approve of not throwing our Youth in prison for marijuana, ergo I support states rights.

[Distruzio]

Suppression isn't oppression, Iffy.

Did that have anything really to do with what either of them were talking about?

Iffy made mention of suppressive political action. Not oppression.

Jim, likewise, responded with examples of suppressive political action.

I thought it pertinent.

[Pantoufle]

How about if Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulclair become the PM of Canada next year that Blue states annex into Canada and Red states turn into the Confederate States of Jesusland.
I would be happy MN would be better off.

[Nova Sumeria]

One could make the case Texas (or any southern state for that matter) underegulates and underfunds their programs...which is probably why poverty rates in the South and obesity rates are sky high.

Pick your poison, I guess.

Texas also doesn't allow same sex marriages. I'll take fewer guns (even if it means giving up my own) and paying a higher tax rate over being a second class citizen.

But then again I'm a rational person.

First, let me point out that statistics on obesity rates in the south are incredibly flawed. The studies those numbers come from were conducted over the phone, literally just calling and asking peoples weight for a survey. It turns out that, unsurprisingly, people lied about their weight. A second, more rigorous study was carried out and it was discovered that southern people aren't actually that much more fat, but that they don't lie about their weight. It's just an odd aspect of "southern" culture to be honest about your flab.

Second, you should never have to trade one fundamental right for another. The Second Amendment is there to protect the rest of your rights, and should be the most jealously guarded. Many black communities with well-trained, disciplined militias were able to easily repel KKK attacks, even when they brought up Confederate cannons kept hidden since the civil war. You have a right to bear arms just as much to keep some asshole with a john deer cap and his drunk friends from deciding to re-arrange your face with a baseball bat as it is to guard against tyrannical governments.

[Nazi Flower Power]

That is precisely what I am doing and why when I leave New York.

Yeah, I bet the state of New York is oppressing the shit out of you.

It's forcing him to live with New Yorkers. Oh, the horror!

[Greed and Death]

Yeah, I bet the state of New York is oppressing the shit out of you.

It's forcing him to live with New Yorkers. Oh, the horror!

Exorbitant charges to get a permit to own firearms, your name and address will be made publicly available if you own a fire arm, and the Governor has pretty much said if you want to own a firearm you have no place in New York.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I see it as a code word for "preventing people we don't like from having the same rights as anyone else without the federal government being able to stop us".

It only means that in the South.

[Greed and Death]

I see it as a code word for "preventing people we don't like from having the same rights as anyone else without the federal government being able to stop us".

It only means that in the South.

Only in the South, and even then only for really old people.