intermodal's Journal: Poll/rant/debate/opinions? United States, or States United

Ok, now, to set down a few statements first, I am not advocating a military overthrow of the current regime in the United States. I am advocating redress, but I'm not clear in what fashion it would best be done yet. I do know the transition would not be simple or easy, but I think in the big picture, it's needed to be done for years now.

Basically, the United States as it stand today, are not reflective of the people it represents. Therefore I have some malformed and badly thought out ideas regarding this.

Note: I started roughing this out before I decided to stop and present it with all its flaws hoping people would rip it apart and thus i'd learn something. As a result, it hasn't been proofread, is full of holes, and is not very broad in its spectrum of thoughts expressed.

Idea one: lose the federal government. Break back up into independent states.

Pros: lacks the overhead of a federal government, allows more locally minded lawmaking as well as better focus on the state itself's economy and needs. Also prevents federal decisions made for the "greater good" that have negative effects in the population from taking control in a state that does not benefit from it (like the 55 speed limit in Montana, for example). No federal income tax. cannot be sued from another state. Large companies in other states will have difficulty screwing the little guy in other states as a result. Reassessment of all (ex-)federal laws at state level to determine the state's stance on it (also a con, see below). Much easier for candidates not representative of a major party to realistically run for office.

Cons: lack of unified military strength, uneven distribution of nuclear weapons, lack of federal standards such as those used by the USDOT for large trucks, likely less pleasant state border crossings, seperate currencies, some states would naturally end up poorer than others, interstate business becomes a pain, and various infastructures such as electricity and air transport would need to work out new ways of working out standards amongst the states. Potential breakdown during the ensuing redivision of responsibility and a lot of reassessment of laws that may or may not make sense to individual states (i.e. Iowa would not likely find the same value in the DMCA as California, and Michigan is unlikely to have the same laws for its great lakes ships that Florida would for its cruise ships)

Idea two: federal trade government over independent states

Pros: same as above with simplified transportation and interstate commerce. Potential military collaboration in times of need.

Cons: same as above plus federal taxes, federal courts, interstate lawsuits likely to continue. less likely to have complete review of law since it's simpler to continue a current (Albeit crufty) system than it is to start over

Option 3: as is now

Pros: status quo is easy to stay with, since governments naturally resist change and loss of power. avoids messy and potentially devastating problems during states' attempts to hold up on their own, since most don't even have balanced budgets as it is. Unified military, unified currency, free-flowing interstate borders

Cons: lack of local control over the more important laws governing them, federal intervention overriding the will of the local people (i.e. medical marijuana in California), easy to sue from one state to another, bogged down legal system, diluted local representation at high levels of government, extremely difficult for candidates who are not of one of two parties to get elected

Idea two was the original idea

[norwoodites]

Really the original from the founding fathers was really what you call idea two. I think it broke up right before the civil war.

Re:Idea two was the original idea

[GMontag]

And idea one was the Articles of Confederation

Re:Idea two was the original idea

[norwoodites]

Yep and that failed see the Shee's (sp?) rebellion and other ones.

Re:Idea two was the original idea

[GMontag]

Actually, idea one was the origonal, idea two is like the Constitution before the Reconstruction Amendments.

Simple disagreement

[Planesdragon]

Basically, the United States as it stand[s] today, [is] not reflective of the people it represents. Therefore I have some malformed and badly thought out ideas regarding this.

I really do simply disagree with your premise. The USA is now, and has always been, a slightly controlled mob with significant deviation among the populace. Sure, the old North/South split is essentially moot, but plenty of replacement splits have arisen.

I think that the US gov't is as representative of its people as any other cou

Re:Simple disagreement

[Em Emalb]

I'll agree.

This is good thinking, PD.

Uh, yeah. What he said.

Law Revisions

[dead sun]

I'm certain that in some places the government is not looking out for citizens as a whole. A seeming fact of politics is that somebody (or many somebodies) is going to abuse their power and try to sell a law. It used to be bribery and now it takes the form of campaign money. The overtness of the corruption is somewhat new I think, but the process is little changed.

What amazes me is that it doesn't seem like laws are repealed that often, yet we have elected officials working full time to create new laws. Isn

Two words - ok four words, maybe more..

[MagnetarJones]

Term Limits (across the board - local to federal government)

New concept:
Age Limits (minimum [30] and maximum [65])

Re:Two words - ok four words, maybe more..

[intermodal]

that actually sounds like a pretty good plan to me for the most part. but I think local should be lower than state, and state lower than federal. Like maybe 21 local, 25 state, and 30 local. Otherwise we'll never see experience hit the floors of washington.