I think America would be much better off if there were no States

[Selwynn]

That's about it. I don't have much to add - I think that so many of our problems are made worse people peoples obsession with "states rights" and this prejudice and bias toward people of one state or other states. There is why too much "the people of Delaware have special needs that must be specially protected!" and not enough "the people of the United States have national needs on which we are united."

What can I say? I'm no fan of states, states rights, state pride, or stereotypical talk about this state or that - including the red state blue state bull crap. I've been reading "Whats the Matter with Kansas" and the author is very critical of how this obsession with stereotypical "red /blue" talk has really done us a disservice.

I guess that's it. :)
(tired)
Sel

[morgan2]

1. there is always something to divide people on

whether it be states/race/culture/religion.. those seeking power will always find ways to apeal to one group by scapegoating another.

[Selwynn]

2. True... but I said better, not perfect.

I dunno... just musing.

[Javaman]

11. Imagine there's no country, it's not a hard thing to do...

John Lennon

[Carolab]

3. Actually I'm all FOR states' rights

The Federal government has gotten way out of hand. The original idea was for the Fed to regulate issues relating to Interstate Commerce and that is pretty much it.

Since the civil war, thanks to Lincoln, state sovereignty has pretty much gone out the window. I'd be happy if we could secede from the union.

[bigtree]

4. For some, the federal government is the primary defender of liberty

Blacks weren't afforded full rights of citizenship until the passage of the 14th and 15th amendment. Even afterward, the federal government would have to assert itself to enforce these rights. So take care when romanticizing about this notion of a weak or non-existent federal government. It should be vital and accessible as it is the primary defender of some of our rights and liberties.

[Selwynn]

6. Why are you for states rights?

[UNIXcock]

10. truth spoken here

No states at all is one step closer to a one-world government

[Selwynn]

12. 1. That's a slippery slope agrument 2. What is inherrently bad in that?

Re: #2, I suppose a case could be made for how this is bad, but I'd be curious to hear your specific take on it.

[Yupster]

5. I'm ready to agree with you Selwynn

Since the Civil War and especially since the direct election of senators, states have pretty much lost their power, so why the charade. Just get rid of them and get rid of a whole layer of bureaocracy. You'd still have counties for local concerns.

[Pepperbelly]

7. Nope. Incredibly expensive thing to do because all of our government

and the delivery of all governmental services is based on a federal system.

[fujiyama]

8. Tell that to republicans

and they'll tell ya the usual "We're a republic" stuff.

Well, that's true, but ironically they're also the same ones that have a million stickers with cliched patriotic logos on their cars.

I'm kind of tired of everything too. I don't understand the obsession by so many over their state's identity. It's so provincial. So many people never even leave the state they were born in. They spend their entire life there. To most of "middle America" NY and CA are foreign countries.

[not systems]

9. State can make limited positive changes...

see the current issue of The Nation the
article "Take It to the Blue States" outlines
a plan to build labor power and social justice
through state governance.

The fact is my state California has much better environmental
standards than the rest of the USA.

What you advocate would mean a loss of progressive power
not a gain.

[Selwynn]

13. It can make tremendous negative changes as well, and does

Noam Chomsky makes a strong argument when it comes to states rights, speaking of how corporate interests often argue for "letting states decide" because state governments are so much easier to manipulate and control. When a huge corporation is one of the major businesses and employers in a state, they have a disproportionate amount of bargaining power, with the threat of leaving your state for another state. They can drive home policies that only further crush poor people but increase profit.

So I guess, the discussion we would really have to have is: what kinds of things should be "left to states" and what kinds of things should be federal?

[UTUSN]

14. Agreed! Equal Dollars, Equal Votes n/t