NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed on my short time on NS General that a lot of posters seem to think of the states as mere administrative districts at best, or an obstacle to "progress" at worst. In this time of increasing centralization, what do you think should be the role of the states?

And by this post I mean states that are members of the United States of America. I'm well aware that the rest of the Americas are American.

To corrupt themselves and subject themselves to one national government controlling everything and only actin like administrative governments upholdin national law demanded by a new bright and shiny constitution.
I hope that sorts out he great mss that is the USA.

Sorry, are you talking about the various American nation states, or are you talking about the states of the nation, the United States of America?

I'm from CA. We didn't elect this idiot. The role of my state should be to bail on the Union. If the rest of the US wants this asshole or people like him to be their president, fuck 'em.

Title edited for the inevitable flood of comments about what constitutes an American state.

I'm from CA. We didn't elect this idiot. The role of my state should be to bail on the Union. If the rest of the US wants this asshole or people like him to be their president, fuck 'em.

South tried that way back when. Bush would just send out the millitary to drag you kicking and screaming back in.

However, if you just declare your property a independent country, they probably wouldn't bother you until time came around to pay your taxes.

South tried that way back when. Bush would just send out the millitary to drag you kicking and screaming back in.

However, if you just declare your property a independent country, they probably wouldn't bother you until time came around to pay your taxes.
No, you go...

Hey! Look over there! It's Iraq!

If Iraqis are wookies, then how can the Ewoks live on Endore?

While he ponders that we escape.

South tried that way back when. Bush would just send out the millitary to drag you kicking and screaming back in.

However, if you just declare your property a independent country, they probably wouldn't bother you until time came around to pay your taxes.

Yea, but if your an independent country, then they can't tax you.

Yea, but if your an independent country, then they can't tax you.

No, but they can declare war on you.

I say that fedarilism is bad, all nations that use it should become unitary states.

Unitary. Thank you Swilatia, that was the word I was looking for. Although Imagine Bush's law upon the poor peoples of the USA. Well they did (apparently) elect him... so they must know what they were letting themselves in for again.

Well, the American states predate the US itself. The states take care of many issues that in other nations are handled by the national government, such as taxation (except for income taxes, those are handled by the government), law enforcement, and many other laws. The US is actually one of the least centralized western nations.

The states are sovereign entities. The federal government cannot alter a state's borders in any way without that state's consent, such as dividing it in two or merging it with another state.

While some think that federalism is a bad idea, the probability of the US becoming a unitary state ranks below that of Czardas acquiring sanity.

I believe in a unitary government. I think if a group of people are to come together and form a government, they do so in recognition that they create the country to serve the common good and have some common bond, so a federal government should be the only law-making body in the land.

Wouldn't work for the US. I live in NYC, so I have a different way of life from in say, Minnesota. Certain laws that makes sense for me and work in my particular corner of the country would make people in other parts go crazy.

Up until the Civil War, the only thing most Americans had in common was the form of currency they used.

most of the states as they currently exist are relics of either ancient colonial nonsense, compromises with slavers, or random straight lines to carve up ridiculously large bits of stolen land into slightly smaller ridiculously large bits. they very rarely have anything to do with actual social or geographical relationships.

time to start over from scratch. and maybe add a couple different layers that don't currently officially exist but should (and sometimes do unofficially).

Federation! Federation! I think federation works well as long as there's a balanced distribution of power between the federal government and the federated entities.

It's worked all this time for Switzerland (they started as a confederation and in name still are, but in pratice they work more as a federation nowadays), I don't think it's a bad form of government.

Well, states should provide a series of laws and regulations that more closely reflect the people.

The states should be disbanded, as should the national government.

The states should be disbanded, as should the national government.
What about local governments?

What about local governments?
Depends. If the free market is able to sustain a standard of living that is acceptable to the populace, it would probably remain with limited powers. If not, the proletariat can take over. Of course, this would vary from area to area.

most of the states as they currently exist are relics of either ancient colonial nonsense, compromises with slavers, or random straight lines to carve up ridiculously large bits of stolen land into slightly smaller ridiculously large bits. they very rarely have anything to do with actual social or geographical relationships.


It may have started that way, but it certainly isn't the case now in any real way.

I'm a Washingtonian. We're more conservative than both of the states directly south of us on average, and we have a more cosmopolitan POV than those east of us. We tend to be a little more pro-military than most, and we "enjoy" what is probably the worst weather in the continental US.

Of course, what I've just said is all averages and impressions, but that still gives our state a different tone and feel from say, Oregon - despite the fact that both Washington and Oregon were part of the Oregon Territory about a hundred years ago.

We can get along with our neighbours just fine. But if Oregon wants to decriminalize something and we don't, well, that's what makes the State system work just fine, doesn't it? We don't have to argue about it, just respect each other's right to be different.

A Unitary system would try to impose the exact same culture on all Americans. There's no way that could possibly work; I'd predict another civil war within a decade.

It may have started that way, but it certainly isn't the case now in any real way.

I'm a Washingtonian. We're more conservative than both of the states directly south of us on average, and we have a more cosmopolitan POV than those east of us. We tend to be a little more pro-military than most, and we "enjoy" what is probably the worst weather in the continental US.

Of course, what I've just said is all averages and impressions, but that still gives our state a different tone and feel from say, Oregon - despite the fact that both Washington and Oregon were part of the Oregon Territory about a hundred years ago.

washington is actually an excellent example of what i'm talking about (though one i know slightly less about than illinois). washington has at least two distinct cultural areas, that also happen to more or less follow a geographic boundary. eastern washington has a lot more in common with northern idaho than with seattle. and if seattle is anything like chicago, then they probably forget that eastern washington even really exists most of the time.

unfortunently the federalist got their way, the united states has a very strong federal government. which is not always the best especially for such a large and diverse nation. thus creating all the debates you hear about today. i personally think the states should have more rights and that the federal government should only concern itself with interstate/international relations

i personally think the states should have more rights

under political theory behind the u.s. constitution rights are things that belong to people, not to government entities. so do you seek to abolish the constitution and start over, or are you just misusing terms?

States are important. We need the states otherwise we'd just be, "The United of America". Which would probably piss even more people off.

States are important. We need the states otherwise we'd just be, "The United of America". Which would probably piss even more people off.

could go with "the united random collection of geographical features of america". ah, the good ol' urcgfa.

The states are generally a good thing. If there was more mobility and people could uproot and move to different states more easily (i.e. too expensive and sometimes hard to get a good job if you move) it would be better.

The states serve two purposes-
First-to spread the burden of government.

But second, and most importantly- to allow for different regulations and standards in a massive country where a uniform code would be rediculous. For instance-
Florida- no state income taxes, warm weather- perfect for old people to retire to, and lots of touristy stuff to keep them entertained.
California- home of Hollywood- where the "tax and spend" people can take care of everyone.
Louisiana- used to be the state where drinking was still legal at 18. The party state. Mardi Gras, etc. But the federal government blackmailed them into falling into line by withholding highway funds until they raised the drinking age to 21.

I think if the states had more power, and the central government less, it would be a better system. You could have different drinking ages, different legalities for marijuana, abortion legal some places and not others, etc. It is that way with some things already, like with tax rates and the death penalty. In a massive country, there should be room for all the different opinions which so divide us, rather than just "democrat" or "republican".

They're not the "Uniform States of America". What's a good law for Iowa isn't necessarily a good law for Flordia. As some others have pointed out, even what's good for NYC isn't necessarily good for New York state. (Most of which is NOT city - there are large beautiful sections of mountains, and lakes and things.) Even New Jersey has made echos of wanting to break into North and South Jersey. North goes with NYC, South, well I'd say thye could join Delaware, but we sure don't want 'em!

Ultimately, I think States are an essential decentralization. They make checks on the federal government - or originally they did. Actually, I think rather than eliminate states, as many of you say (probably not from here, any of you, are you?) I think we should strengthen states' rights, and decentralize MORE, not less. I know it's not trendy, but I think it would stop the federal freight train from taking us all to hell in a handbasket.

could go with "the united random collection of geographical features of america". ah, the good ol' urcgfa.
Pronounced by people who don't know what an acronym is:
"urk-guh-fah".
Yes, Norden, I'm looking at you.
*stares*
Better than USian, in my honest opinion.

The role of the states isto emancipate themselves if and when the federalized government becomes to corrupt to uphold the ideas upon which the government was founded. Towards that end, states should maintain a certain level of autonomous self-government so that when the time for emancipation comes, they are able to do so.