Why not give the states more autonomy?

[Anomalism]

The United States is huge. It's approximately the size of western Europe and has a similar population. One of the results is that regional cultures can vary a lot throughout the country. That in mind it seems kind of ridiculous that these regions don't have more power over their lives and finances. Is it really reasonable for the federal government to exert so much social and economic control over such a large and varied population? I don't think the states need much from the federal government in the form of being told how to live their lives or spend their money. Also if states had more control we'd have a clearer picture of which ideologies work and which ones are bullshit.

 

[progressive hunter]

The United States is huge. It's approximately the size of western Europe and has a similar population. One of the results is that regional cultures can vary a lot throughout the country. That in mind it seems kind of ridiculous that these regions don't have more power over their lives and finances. Is it really reasonable for the federal government to exert so much social and economic control over such a large and varied population? I don't think the states need much from the federal government in the form of being told how to live their lives or spend their money. Also if states had more control we'd have a clearer picture of which ideologies work and which ones are bullshit.

UH excuse me but the states are already autonomous to a certain degree,, its just that dem and repubes gave that up for financial gain..

 

[Anomalism]

to a certain degree

Indeed.

 

[Votto]

The United States is huge. It's approximately the size of western Europe and has a similar population. One of the results is that regional cultures can vary a lot throughout the country. That in mind it seems kind of ridiculous that these regions don't have more power over their lives and finances. Is it really reasonable for the federal government to exert so much social and economic control over such a large and varied population? I don't think the states need much from the federal government in the form of being told how to live their lives or spend their money. Also if states had more control we'd have a clearer picture of which ideologies work and which ones are bullshit.

States only have the power to thumb their nose at the Federal government when it comes to such things as protecting illegal immigrants from Trump with sanctuary cities. However, when Arizona tried to implement federal laws on immigration when Obama was in office, Obama sued them and stopped them.

Laws don't apply to Progressives, they are the law.

 

[Rambunctious]

States have plenty of rope to hang themselves....just look at CA and NY....they resemble states in communist China more than they do states in the USA.....

 

[Votto]

Socialists/Leftists/Communists/Fascists, whatever you want to call them all demand everyone think and act the same.

There can be no deviation, no opposition.

 

[Nosmo King]

The "state's rights" argument sounds noble and virtuous on its face. But, historically, we have realized that some states adop policies that are more repressive of individual rights than others. E. G. The repressive racial segregation of 'Jim Crow', voter sippression, restrictive reproduction laws, gerrymandering of congressional districts. These clearly show the abuse of power of a minority segment over a state's population.

There are other national issues which can only be addressed on a national scale. The immunization against this pandemic is obvious. States either need national help in administering the vaccine, or cede the effort to federal authority. Racist, brutal and inexcusable abuses of police tactics can't simply be overlooked by individual states, but be a national priority.

The cops in say Alabama, for example, cannot act with impognity toward minorities and be excused as just 'the way we chose to do things here'. We Americans deserve to be treated with empathy and justice no matter where in America we may reside.

Some states are considerably wealthier than others. These states can afford to build hospitals, parks, universities and public schools, maintain and build roads, bridges, ports, airports, water and sewer treatment plants. These necessities are budgetary pipedreams for poor states. Why should residents of those poor states suffer from the lack of such services?

How can depriving people of those necessary things help advance those poor states? It's like putting them in a pit and refusing to give them a ladder to climb out.

As cynical as some people are, we need national government to solve national problems.

The federal government taxes us to provide national defense, to establish justice, to provide for the common welfare, and to establish a more perfect union. Leaving that up to 50 individual states will never let us reach those aspirations.

 

[Nosmo King]

Socialists/Leftists/Communists/Fascists, whatever you want to call them all demand everyone think and act the same.

There can be no deviation, no opposition.

But there must be meaningful debate and aspiration to reach a common ground.

 

[TheParser]

The United States is huge. It's approximately the size of western Europe and has a similar population. One of the results is that regional cultures can vary a lot throughout the country. That in mind it seems kind of ridiculous that these regions don't have more power over their lives and finances. Is it really reasonable for the federal government to exert so much social and economic control over such a large and varied population? I don't think the states need much from the federal government in the form of being told how to live their lives or spend their money. Also if states had more control we'd have a clearer picture of which ideologies work and which ones are bullshit.

Many people support your idea enthusiastically.

If states could decide who could and who could not live in those states, that would be a great help.

The current practice of allowing free movement between the 50 states is causing much unrest.

For example, Georgia would not be having its current problems if it had the authority to control immigration to that state.

There are still a few states (which I shan't name) that have so far been spared the chaos that we see in many blue states. I am afraid that those unnamed states will not be able to hold out much longer. I feel so sorry for their residents.

 

[Anomalism]

Many people support your idea enthusiastically.

I figured many right wingers would. I'm mostly interested in the left's perspective here.

 

[Donald H]

To allow unfettered corruption in any state that tries to steal an election?

The motive is crystal clear!

Perhaps another time when the motive isn't written all over it?

 

[blackhawk]

The United States is huge. It's approximately the size of western Europe and has a similar population. One of the results is that regional cultures can vary a lot throughout the country. That in mind it seems kind of ridiculous that these regions don't have more power over their lives and finances. Is it really reasonable for the federal government to exert so much social and economic control over such a large and varied population? I don't think the states need much from the federal government in the form of being told how to live their lives or spend their money. Also if states had more control we'd have a clearer picture of which ideologies work and which ones are bullshit.

That is a very sound reasonable idea which is why it will go nowhere the federal government is about power and control not about what works well and what doesn’t.

 

[WEATHER53]

They need less of it, passing all these absurd quarantine “laws”
This is the UNITED States of America, not the Disparate States