Would America benefit if states were removed

[yetgdhfgh]

Would America benefit if states were removed and power was solely in the hands of washington the capital of america

Lets say states like arizona newyork missisippi were all dissolved and america became a fully united country like france with a centralised government

It just seems to me the constant battle between states rights and federal rights would disappear but would this lead to a better government or more problems.

i know the constitutation would forbide this but lets theoretical say this happened and there was no more states just a country called america

What would happen i wonder? would america become more united instead of divided that seems to be the case atm who knows

what are your thoughts

[Ihsatakar]

No, America would not benefit. I don't have the time to explain it right now as I've got to leave for school, but I will after class if there's a point to it.

[Deleted]

Yes it would benefit, each state having its own laws and regulations just seems very odd. One example would be firearms, you can carry a concealed weapon in some states but would end up in prison in others. Having uniformity when it comes to the law is rarely a bad thing.

You could keep the state names and regions but make them all follow the same laws.

[Venziir]

I cannot even begin to fathom the havoc and chaos it would create.

[MC Payne]

No, large government = bad IMO, more problems when it comes to freedom, less problems when it comes to laws

[Daelak]

I think the Southern states that are so dependent on the evil "big government" should stop huffing and puffing and leave. They should secede along with Texas. These states are all drags on the rest of the other states. My state, Tennessee, funds tens of thousands of poor rural people's existence on top of the federal aid. The same rural poor who complain non-stop about federal "overreach" are the same who receive the most from productive citizens of Connecticut, New York, California, etc. I say let them leave. Enough with the "debate" and "compromise" with states that do not bring anything to the table

[Deleted]

No, large government = bad IMO, more problems when it comes to freedom, less problems when it comes to laws

Every state having its own laws is better than uniformity?

[yetgdhfgh]

Yes it would benefit, each state having its own laws and regulations just seems very odd. One example would be firearms, you can carry a concealed weapon in some states but would end up in prison in others. Having uniformity when it comes to the law is rarely a bad thing.

You could keep the state names and regions but make them all follow the same laws.

yeah its seems so strange

its like you can go to one state and be able to gamble shoot and have sex with hookers but if you move 10 miles down the road all thats illegal
Seems very strange to me

[Sunseeker]

I don't believe so, though I certainly think state borders could stand to be softened to emphasize that it is AMERICA we should be loyal to, not one state. We are everything, or nothing, we don't get to have our cake and eat it too.

[Jersovic]

No, America would not benefit. I don't have the time to explain it right now as I've got to leave for school, but I will after class if there's a point to it.

School on Easter Weekend??!

[seta-san]

I don't believe so, though I certainly think state borders could stand to be softened to emphasize that it is AMERICA we should be loyal to, not one state. We are everything, or nothing, we don't get to have our cake and eat it too.

america is technically 50 individual countries that gave up some of their power to a federal government to provide a uniform block in international diplomacy and defense. How it's grown into such a unintentionally huge monster. Having the federal government take away the power of the states would result in a second civil war.

John Edwards once said there were two americas... There are, but not the way he means it. There is the costal united states (new england and california) and then there is the rest of the country. With inland states trying to keep ahold of their culture and their heritage from being taken over by a government we hardly like any more and are liking less all the time. I wonder how much more until some state declares sovereignty.

---------- Post added 2012-04-06 at 08:29 AM ----------

Every state having its own laws is better than uniformity?

yes.
take for example Nebraska and Iowa. Nebraska doesn't want gambling and casinos while Iowa does. To each their own.

[Deleted]

america is technically 50 individual countries that gave up some of their power to a federal government to provide a uniform block in international diplomacy and defense. How it's grown into such a unintentionally huge monster. Having the federal government take away the power of the states would result in a second civil war.

John Edwards once said there were two americas... There are, but not the way he means it. There is the costal united states (new england and california) and then there is the rest of the country. With inland states trying to keep ahold of their culture and their heritage from being taken over by a government we hardly like any more and are liking less all the time. I wonder how much more until some state declares sovereignty.

---------- Post added 2012-04-06 at 08:29 AM ----------



yes.
take for example Nebraska and Iowa. Nebraska doesn't want gambling and casinos while Iowa does. To each their own.

If they dont want them, dont build them.

[seta-san]

we're not building them. We have laws against them, thank you very much.

[Deleted]

Yes it would benefit, each state having its own laws and regulations just seems very odd. One example would be firearms, you can carry a concealed weapon in some states but would end up in prison in others. Having uniformity when it comes to the law is rarely a bad thing.

You could keep the state names and regions but make them all follow the same laws.

Different regions have different needs and reasonings. You need look no further than the devolved governments in the UK; each wields their power in the way they view as best for the people and have different laws. As such, devolution works much better than just Westminster dictating everything for every region. It's also why local councils are generally a good thing; they can represent you and address your needs a lot better than just Westminster.

So on and so forth. America is fine with it's states, changing things really wouldn't make things better.

[Daelak]

america is technically 50 individual countries that gave up some of their power to a federal government to provide a uniform block in international diplomacy and defense. How it's grown into such a unintentionally huge monster. Having the federal government take away the power of the states would result in a second civil war.

John Edwards once said there were two americas... There are, but not the way he means it. There is the costal united states (new england and california) and then there is the rest of the country. With inland states trying to keep ahold of their culture and their heritage from being taken over by a government we hardly like any more and are liking less all the time. I wonder how much more until some state declares sovereignty.[COLOR="red"]

---------- Post added 2012-04-06 at 08:29 AM ----------

^^^This opinion from this person is what causes intractable differences between the states. If it wasn't for the combined funds from the coastal states (productive) then the states like mine, Tennessee, would be in even worse shape than now. These red states are very dependent on the federal government for farm subsidies, low income/underemployment benefits, federal road grants to rural areas, and they still have the gall to call it their culture and heritage, yea a culture that sucks funding from productive states to the poorer ones.

[Direknyte]

Not only no, but HELL NO. Giving even more power to the out-of-touch morons in DC would be one of the worst things that could possibly happen to the USA. If anything, they need to drastically reduce the amount of power the central government has and give more autonomy to the individual states.

One thing that many who have never been here don't realize is the actual size of the country and the distances involved. The US has many states that are comparable to some countries in Europe. Some examples for ya: Germany is almost the size of Montana, Ireland is slightly larger than West Virginia, Italy is just bigger than the state of Arizona, Sweden is just larger than California, and the United Kingdom is smaller than the state of Oregon. Spain is about the same size as Oregon and Washington state combined.

Not saying anything about one being better than the other, but trying to maybe help some folks get a better grasp of the distances and sizes involved in trying to govern this country; and why what may make sense for a country the size of a state or two there will more than likely not work at all well on this side of the pond.

[seta-san]

welcome to the problem of welfare. If it weren't for this funding people would have either moved to other states with better job opportunities or would find ways to innovate out of the situation or just cut back.

[Maharishi]

Every state having its own laws is better than uniformity?

So you don't want england/scotland/ireland/wales to have different laws/government?

America has a pretty huge population, and you need levels of government to effectively govern.

[Daelak]

welcome to the problem of welfare. If it weren't for this funding people would have either moved to other states with better job opportunities or would find ways to innovate out of the situation or just cut back.

But that is the problem, the rural, the inner city blacks, and poor elderly/disabled cannot move for they do not even make enough money to leave. The south has an inordinate amount of people that are stuck in rural areas that are addicted to prescription drugs and have chronic unemployment. Add the fact that there is no healthcare access in the rural areas with food that is filled with sugar and carbohydrates you see obesity and addiction is rampant.

[eriseis]

Mexico tried that at some point in history.

Ask them how that went.

France is smaller than Texas, even with the advances in communication we have today, it'd be difficult for a central government to handle all the issues of one of the largest countries in the world in terms of population, land mass and economy.