NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like in America, the only good thing National Government is for is for raising taxes, making stupid laws (the internet annoyance laws), and waging pointless Wars in other countries. Do we really need a National Government? I mean couldn't we just exist as a country that is made up of states? We would still have Nat. Govt. in the sense that we would have a national militatry. Could it really be done? I mean think about it! If one state taxes is too high, just move to one that's lower. One state overruned by democrats, go to one with Republican or Libertarians in power. I personally think it would be awesome. States could trade with one another, and with other countries etc.

What do yall think?

It's called the EU.

It's called the EU.
I thought exactly the same thing...:eek:

IDK average joe nobody republican from Texas, would still get pissed that Mass. is allowing tat der deem queers to fornicate.... Sarcasm aside...

Good idea tho...

It's called the EU.

**nods**

or the rest of the world for that matter.

There is a lot of countries to choose from out there.
But move to the EU there is 1 language for every 1million population it is fantastic, plus it is an EU directive that if you start a new million you get to create your own language.<G>

We would still have Nat. Govt. in the sense that we would have a national militatry.
No, please! Break up the national military too! From the non-American point of view, one of the benefits of the USA dividing up into independent states or regions is that it would remove the presence of a large dominating superpower from the world, and the military is a big part of that domination.
Could it really be done? I mean think about it! If one state taxes is too high, just move to one that's lower. One state overruned by democrats, go to one with Republican or Libertarians in power. I personally think it would be awesome. States could trade with one another, and with other countries etc.
I'm sure it could be done, although some of the smaller states might want to group together in order to create a more viable nation.

You could do that, but you'd have Civil War in about 4.3 seconds after the dissolution of the national government.

You could do that, but you'd have Civil War in about 4.3 seconds after the dissolution of the national government.

And Mexico could then take back Texas...

It was called the Aritcles of Confederation.

It Didn't work, we had it from 1777-1787


Then we wrote the constitution and got to where we are today, for better or for worse

IDK average joe nobody republican from Texas, would still get pissed that Mass. is allowing tat der deem queers to fornicate.... Sarcasm aside...

I doubt it.

It was called the Aritcles of Confederation.

It Didn't work, we had it from 1777-1787


Then we wrote the constitution and got to where we are today, for better or for worse

We couldn't have a national army under the Articles, though, could we? I think a Constitution with a stronger version of the Bill of Rights included would be quite good (ie, eliminating those ambiguities in some Amendments and simply saying: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; There shall no searches of the people without a warrant in probable cause, etc).

Yes. Because the larger the society, the better it's chances of survival.

Canada would take Alaska... Hehehe... We'd send one of our thirty people to fight your four people...

It's called the EU.
well, technically no. there are three pillars to the house of europe: justice and home affairs, and external security (including the military) are not supranational, -only the economic/ trade pillar is.

Ya, your right. Because it's not like we need Social Security, Mediacaid, the Military, FEMA, the T.S.A., the N.S.A., the F.B.I., the C.I.A., or anything else.

Next time someone attacks New York, we'll just shrug and say "not our problem"

Ya, your right. Because it's not like we need Social Security, Mediacaid, the Military, FEMA, the T.S.A., the N.S.A., the F.B.I., the C.I.A., or anything else.

Next time someone attacks New York, we'll just shrug and say "not our problem"
too right man, too right

Of course we don't need a central government. Just like we don't need science, or an army. Heck, while we're at it, let's go back to the Middle Ages. :rolleyes:

Yeah, who cares about those people from other states anyway? Not our problem indeed.

But assuming you did abolish the Fed. Govt., what would you do to deal with external threats? Okay, so you keep a military, but who has the ultimate say over the armed forces? Who decides when and where they should attack and defend? Do the 50 states get together and have a meeting to establish a consensus as to what the military should be doing?

And then there are the practical implications. Like losing the ability to access economies of scale, which the Federal government can make the most of, presiding over an entire nation. The inconsistencies between state legislation over tax etc would create huge inefficiencies for businesses which operate across state lines. Large companies would have to employ tax specialists in every state which they operated in order to comply with complex and varying tax systems.

So yeah, if you want to decrease the security and reduce the economic competitiveness of all the states in a country, it is a pretty good idea to abolish the Federal government.

And Mexico could then take back Texas...
Yeah, that _would_ happen.

Yeah, who cares about those people from other states anyway? Not our problem indeed.

But assuming you did abolish the Fed. Govt., what would you do to deal with external threats? Okay, so you keep a military, but who has the ultimate say over the armed forces? Who decides when and where they should attack and defend? Do the 50 states get together and have a meeting to establish a consensus as to what the military should be doing?

And then there are the practical implications. Like losing the ability to access economies of scale, which the Federal government can make the most of, presiding over an entire nation. The inconsistencies between state legislation over tax etc would create huge inefficiencies for businesses which operate across state lines. Large companies would have to employ tax specialists in every state which they operated in order to comply with complex and varying tax systems.
So yeah, if you want to decrease the security and reduce the economic competitiveness of all the states in a country, it is a pretty good idea to abolish the Federal government.
Kinda like the E.U.? Now there's a model of efficiency! :D

Yeah, who cares about those people from other states anyway? Not our problem indeed.

But assuming you did abolish the Fed. Govt., what would you do to deal with external threats? Okay, so you keep a military, but who has the ultimate say over the armed forces? Who decides when and where they should attack and defend? Do the 50 states get together and have a meeting to establish a consensus as to what the military should be doing?

And then there are the practical implications. Like losing the ability to access economies of scale, which the Federal government can make the most of, presiding over an entire nation. The inconsistencies between state legislation over tax etc would create huge inefficiencies for businesses which operate across state lines. Large companies would have to employ tax specialists in every state which they operated in order to comply with complex and varying tax systems.

So yeah, if you want to decrease the security and reduce the economic competitiveness of all the states in a country, it is a pretty good idea to abolish the Federal government.
The federal government doesn't make money. Neither do state governments. All they can do is spend tax revenue. It would be great to see about 3/4s of all federal laws and cabinet-level departments abolished. Everything in your post is already true; industry already has to comply with varied state tax regulations and a complex federal IRS. That's the first bureau to go --- IRS.

Seems like in America, the only good thing National Government is for is for raising taxes, making stupid laws (the internet annoyance laws), and waging pointless Wars in other countries. Do we really need a National Government? I mean couldn't we just exist as a country that is made up of states? We would still have Nat. Govt. in the sense that we would have a national militatry. Could it really be done? I mean think about it! If one state taxes is too high, just move to one that's lower. One state overruned by democrats, go to one with Republican or Libertarians in power. I personally think it would be awesome. States could trade with one another, and with other countries etc.

What do yall think?

The scenario you described did, in face, exist (and was the intent of the Founding Fathers). You can thank FDR for the way our National govt exists today. Basically, the Federal government taxes us to death and redistributes money to the State goverments (keeping them in line).

The federal government doesn't make money. Neither do state governments. All they can do is spend tax revenue. It would be great to see about 3/4s of all federal laws and cabinet-level departments abolished. Everything in your post is already true; industry already has to comply with varied state tax regulations and a complex federal IRS. That's the first bureau to go --- IRS.


Errr.... So you think America would be more efficient and economically competitive without a federal government?

Why does everyone assume you have to be large to be economically competitive?

Top ten countries ranked by GDP per capita according to Wikipedia. The CIA World Factbook is slightly different, but not by much.

1 Luxembourg 69,737
2 Norway 54,600
3 Switzerland 49,300
4 Ireland 45,675
5 Denmark 44,808
6 Iceland 41,804
7 United States 39,935
8 Sweden 38,493
9 Qatar 37,610
10 Netherlands 37,326

Notice that the US is the only large country there.

Ya, your right. Because it's not like we need Social Security, Mediacaid, the Military, FEMA, the T.S.A., the N.S.A., the F.B.I., the C.I.A., or anything else.

Well, its not as though the money that pays for these things just gets pulled out of thin air. Many states get less money back than they pay in so they would actually be able to pay for more.

Of course we don't need a central government. Just like we don't need science, or an army. Heck, while we're at it, let's go back to the Middle Ages.

Non sequiter? The smaller countries of Europe seem to get along just fine, I don't see why independent American states wouldn't.

You could do that, but you'd have Civil War in about 4.3 seconds after the dissolution of the national government.

Why? Seperation doesn't automatically equal civil war. Czechoslovakia and the USSR automatically spring to mind. Those were both relatively peaceful dissolutions.

And Mexico could then take back Texas...

Bah, Texas would smack Mexico around :)

Anyway, there are a lot of practical considerations I don't have immediate answers for, but I've been thinking of the concept for a while. For some reason people imagine that a country has to be huge to survive, and Europe proves that this is patently untrue.

Errr.... So you think America would be more efficient and economically competitive without a federal government?
Absolutely. Just eliminating the IRS and the associated tax code would be a great step forward for industry. We push industry away with our current codes. The rest would be gravy for the rest of us.

To those who think that our security would be fatally comprimised, I ask this: What security risks would we have without a Federal government? Let's be honest, the vast majority of security risks we've ever had have come from the actions of the Fed.

As for security arrangements, one solution would be for every state to join NATO, and for NATO to have a jointly owned/operated fleet of RO/RO ships and transport aircraft. The ships and aircraft from the US military could probably be put to good use this way. However, it would have to be set up so that these assets could be used even if not all of the NATO members agree to their use.

Economically, having a single currency and currency control would probably be essential, like the ECB. Also, expanding on NAFTA would probably be desirable.

Civil War will probably be the likely outcome, along with plenty of foreign intervention.

Civil War will probably be the likely outcome

Why?

I think we'd all be better off if we weren't under one central government... We can't get along... People want Christianity to rule the day and people want social freedom.... It can not go hand in hand... However, it will never happen... We'll all still hate each other and we'll still be the United States...

Ya, your right. Because it's not like we need Social Security, Mediacaid, the Military, FEMA, the T.S.A., the N.S.A., the F.B.I., the C.I.A., or anything else.

Next time someone attacks New York, we'll just shrug and say "not our problem"

Had it not been for the central government and the powers that be... NY probably wouldn't of been attacked....

Absolutely. Without the national government there would be no binding Constitution, no Supreme Court, and no central government. There would be no interstate infrastructure unless privately built, no central defense system, no central revenue system, and no national currency or central bank. Ultimately it would be an economic and political disaster, the equivalent of Balkanizing the United States in to 50 separate nations.

Absolutely. Without the national government there would be no binding Constitution, no Supreme Court, and no central government. There would be no interstate infrastructure unless privately built, no central defense system, no central revenue system, and no national currency or central bank. Ultimately it would be an economic and political disaster, the equivalent of Balkanizing the United States in to 50 separate nations.

We'd still have our state constitutions.... Out central state governments in the form of the legislature and the governors office... All the infrastructure is already built... and we have our own state militia... Ya know the state guard?? No currency tho... But we do have large banks in NYC... So I think NY would do pretty well...

Why?

Why do we ever have wars? Hell there will probably be a large contingent of states that want to keep the National gov't and will fight to bring the rest back, a re-fight of the American Civil War as it were, plus there will be some states that'll demand resources from other weaker states (imagine Michigan trying to fight everyone off trying to get the Great Lakes). Plus there will be foreign powers that would just love to partner up with the stronger states (California has an economy larger then most other nations iirc) and the Mexicans would try to get back all the territory they used to have (lord knows most of their population is already in place)

Seems like in America, the only good thing National Government is for is for raising taxes, making stupid laws (the internet annoyance laws), and waging pointless Wars in other countries. Do we really need a National Government? I mean couldn't we just exist as a country that is made up of states? We would still have Nat. Govt. in the sense that we would have a national militatry. Could it really be done? I mean think about it! If one state taxes is too high, just move to one that's lower. One state overruned by democrats, go to one with Republican or Libertarians in power. I personally think it would be awesome. States could trade with one another, and with other countries etc.

What do yall think?

I agree whole-heartedly, but in order for that to happen the federal government must take the following steps...
1) Cut federal funding to the states completely.
2) Private roads and highways (and yes it can be done more efficiently by the private sector, and turn a profit)
3) Auction off the remaining federal property
4) Set limits on federal power to only treaty and war-making abilities
5) Eliminate income tax


After that the states can run however they want. If MA wants gay rights and a liberal government, and TX wants shoot gays in firing ranges, then no one can stop them. Freedom is bliss.

We'd still have our state constitutions.... Out central state governments in the form of the legislature and the governors office... All the infrastructure is already built... and we have our own state militia... Ya know the state guard?? No currency tho... But we do have large banks in NYC... So I think NY would do pretty well...



Actually though the National Guard is named for each state, it has been getting most of its funding and equipment as part approriations for the Regular Army by Congress. All equipment is now CIF issued instead of purchased and distrubuted at state level. Another thing you have states like Louisiana that even before the Hurricane was in the toilet along with Alabama and Mississippi, they were all near broke if not. (i remember one of them laid off a whole shitload of state police and released a bunch of prisoners from jail because they ran out of money)

Then you've got Ohio that can't balance a budget if their life depended on it

Goddamn you Governor Taft (why won't they wake up in Colombus, i mean really?) Much more complicated situation, so lets not go there.

We'd still have our state constitutions.... Out central state governments in the form of the legislature and the governors office... All the infrastructure is already built... and we have our own state militia... Ya know the state guard?? No currency tho... But we do have large banks in NYC... So I think NY would do pretty well...

The infrastructure would decay without private investment, which could be very bad for strategically valuable but economically useless areas.

However, by saying that you probably understand why New York (especially NYC) wanted to secede from the Union during the early 1800's, and later NYC during the Civil War.

Actually though the National Guard is named for each state, it has been getting most of its funding and equipment as part approriations for the Regular Army by Congress. All equipment is now CIF issued instead of purchased and distrubuted at state level. Another thing you have states like Louisiana that even before the Hurricane was in the toilet along with Alabama and Mississippi, they were all near broke if not. (i remember one of them laid off a whole shitload of state police and released a bunch of prisoners from jail because they ran out of money)

Then you've got Ohio that can't balance a budget if their life depended on it

Goddamn you Governor Taft (why won't they wake up in Colombus, i mean really?) Much more complicated situation, so lets not go there.

The National Guard is federalized now anyways so we have now state militia anymore... And a lot of states are broke.... very broke... NY is in serious financial trouble...

The infrastructure would decay without private investment, which could be very bad for strategically valuable but economically useless areas.

However, by saying that you probably understand why New York (especially NYC) wanted to secede from the Union during the early 1800's, and later NYC during the Civil War.

You're right on the private investment..... In terms of NY... We're a different breed of American.. Even our politicians are a lot different than found in most states... Aside from the federal level that is... We're used as a spring board for the presidency usually.... There is some resentment still amongst NY'ers for 9/11 and other things, but I don't think we want secede anymore.. We kinda just want to be left alone... Tourism, of course, but don't bug us while you're visiting... ;)

We already tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It proved to be much too weak and it was replaced by the Constitution.

During the Revolutionary War, the United States was really a collection of colonies that was in effect a mix between one nation and 13 separate nations, as eight or nine of the states had their own navies and nearly all of them had their own militia. To complicate matters further, most, if not all of the states all coined their own money, so you had Massachusetts dollars, Maryland dollars, etc.

Neither the Revolutionary set up nor the Articles of Confederation were effective because power was decentralised. There needs to be a central government with its laws being the supreme law of the land. The United States can't function effectively otherwise.

We already tried that. It was called the Articles of Confederation. It proved to be much too weak and it was replaced by the Constitution.

During the Revolutionary War, the United States was really a collection of colonies that was in effect a mix between one nation and 13 separate nations, as eight or nine of the states had their own navies and nearly all of them had their own militia. To complicate matters further, most, if not all of the states all coined their own money, so you had Massachusetts dollars, Maryland dollars, etc.

Neither the Revolutionary set up nor the Articles of Confederation were effective because power was decentralised. There needs to be a central government with its laws being the supreme law of the land. The United States can't function effectively otherwise.

So why don't we break up into like 4 or 5 regions? We'd still be united just under different central governments...

And Mexico could then take back Texas...

screw them - they lost texas fair and square

Since its on topic....

F*CK THE SOUTH (http://www.fuckthesouth.com/)

Funny read...

So why don't we break up into like 4 or 5 regions? We'd still be united just under different central governments...

What's the difference between this and the original question?

What's the difference between this and the original question?

A central government LOL..

A central government LOL..

But the point of this is to get rid of a central government.

But the point of this is to get rid of a central government.

Ya got me...

Kinda like the E.U.? Now there's a model of efficiency! :D
Would there be free trade in this balkanised Un-United States?
In the EU they are, by the way, always working to make conditions for business equal in all member states, so on the EU-level, things are at least somewhat predictable.
And then sometimes they just go overboard...

screw them - they lost texas fair and square
Yeah, just like Poland lost fair and square in 1939.

not quite the same


Texas fought a war of independance and won. They were there own seperate country and then joined the United States so that they wouldn't have to give up their slaves.(something like that) Plus they wanted more territory


Poland got invaded and annexed.


well anyway. This is senseless, a strong central government is the only reason we are the country that we are.

Neither the Revolutionary set up nor the Articles of Confederation were effective because power was decentralised. There needs to be a central government with its laws being the supreme law of the land. The United States can't function effectively otherwise.

so that whole winning it's freedom thing was just a fluke then?

the constitution was a counterrevolutionary coup.

This is senseless, a strong central government is the only reason we are the country that we are.

That may not entirely be a good thing.

There needs to be a central government with its laws being the supreme law of the land. The United States can't function effectively otherwise.

You may be right. The question is, do we need a "United States"?

You may be right. The question is, do we need a "United States"?


ok. Good question, should be rephrased to

Have we ever NEEDED the united states.


yes.


WWII and the cold war.


without our industrial muscle and constant shipments, Britain would have fallen to the third reich eventually. The soviet Union probably would have eventually ground down the Third Reich, but that can't be known for sure.


And i'm sure our late entry into WWI helped the allied cause a little bit. (debateable again) but we would have been a lot less able to help as 50 seperate governments, very likely the whole region(of god knows how many nations) would have been choosing different sides and open warfare may have raged across north america.

ok. Good question, should be rephrased to

Have we ever NEEDED the united states.

That makes it an entirely different question. I think its undeniable that we needed the United States, but the question is, is it necessary now? With globalization and complex interdependence with trade are such large scare wars as WWII plausible? If not, why do we need a real Federal government instead of a more EU type economic bloc?