Some of may opinions are considered radical, even unthinkable. So why not put 'em on dislay here? Today's radical thought from SheaNC (by the way those are my actual initials... I wouldn't want to offend North Carolina... anyway, back to business):
I think that the founders of our country made a big mistake by setting it up as a group of united separate states instead of one big country. I'm talking about no states at all. One Country.
I ask you, what's wrong with our country being one big country? Every time a crisis occurs, everyone encourages everyone else to "unite as one," they say, "united we stand," etc. It would simplify so many things. We would only have to pay federal tax instead of both state and federal taxes; no more double-taxation. And no more divisive arguments about one state receiving more federal goodies than another. No more time wasted by politicians tossing back and forth the issue of "states' rights," as one nation we would all receive equal rights and equal protection. And, those republicans who claim to support smaller government should be pleased to discover that, as one country, there would be a whole lot fewer politicians! Less beaurocracy!
The whole idea of a "united states" is obsolete. Remember, the word "state" as you learned it in school is not the word "state" as the founders knew it. Today, to most Americans, a "state" is basically a "region." But to the founders, a "state" was a country or a nation, truer to its historical definition. To them, the states were more probably defined as a group of separate countries; not unlike Europe, and probably conceived as a "New Europe" of little countries cooperating for the good of all. But all of this was happening at a time when distances were greater, population was fewer, and the world was basically limitless. But now, with the benefits of human connectivity on a grand scale, there's no need for America to be a bunch of little kingdoms.
Of course, it is too late to change what is so entrenched in power. The kings of those little kingdoms won't give them up... too much money flows in too many directions. But oh, imagine the possibilities. One nation, indivisible. Call me crazy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Obviously, we're both formulating an idea! :)
That's weird, I didn't remove the comment. What's even stranger is that i wrote the comment on Word and actually have it saved at home. I'll re post it tonight.
I hope I didn't do it accidentally [embarrassed look]. Yeah, re-post and I'll respond with my ever-so-witty commentary :)
Ready for witty commentary:
Ok, Ok... States, why they remain vitally important:
Mass, gay marriage!
Alaska, and 10 other states, Medical marijuana laws
Alaska, state supreme court says “it is legal for a person to possess up to 4 ounces in their own home.
Oregon, assisted suicide.
Cali, much stricter enviro laws.
Etc, etc.
As appealing as one world or one country sounds, I feel it is important to bring the mechanism of govt down to a level where the local populace has a direct say in the operation of same. The real job of the fed is to make sure that the majority does not oppress the rights of the minority.
I agree with you about the fed's responsibiilty to protect the minority. But I'm thinking, in a "state-less" America, those good things you list that different states have might be available to all instead of to just those states. A more equitable share of resources and benefits.
And, I'm bugged that sparsely-populated rural states hold sway over densely-populated urban areas (i.e. the resulting red vs blue electoral map). I think they end up with a disproportionate share of power.
Of course, I'm gambling that in a situation as I've described, wherein it seems we would be more of a democracy and less of a republic, peoples' votes would generally be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and free-er of pork!
Post a Comment