Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,944,809 times
Reputation: 16466
Advertisements
Based on my thread "Is America too Broken to Fix?" with the overwhelming response being "yes," maybe it's time to dissolve the union. What would be the effects of disbanding the federal government? Not whether we should or not, but what would happen if we did?
The US was originally created basically to ensure ease of movement, mutual aid and to create a trading block back when the population was around 2.5 million colonists who had a common enemy. It wasn't designed to manage (i.e. dominate) nearly 350 million people who hate each other, with no way forward to any sort of compromise or reconcilliation on most issues.
Frankly I don't think it would affect most of us all that much. The State governments would still be in place doing business as usual. Many states, like AZ, have Constitutions which are based off the original, but are stronger and better written than the US Constitution. Like our version of the 2A "The right to bear arms in defense of self or the state, shall not be infringed." Nothing about militias at all. Because everyone in AZ between 18 and 45 is, by law, a member of the state militia, men and women.
Some states, like CA, TX, FL would have massive military infrastructure and could be threats to their neighbors depending on how federal assets were split up.
Perhaps we could reinstitute a small and very limited federal arrangement for mutual defense (someone needs to control the nukes). But other than over regulation, and criminalizing most of the population with draconian laws and excessive taxation, the federal govt does little for state residents that I can see, except suck the population dry and enact unpopular laws. States already provide the infrastructure, senior services, health and other services. Yes the feds chip in some money, but by doing away with federal taxes the states could implement a new tax structure best for their citizens. And "taker" states would no longer drag down productive states.
We could still implement free transit between states, non-tarriff and foreign trade agreements. The southern border states could finally control their borders and block transit from rogue states like California with unrestricted immigration.
The dollar is probably going away regardless. The federal debt is too great. Rather than let the mismanaged dollar drag us all down the states could either implement a new mutual currency or as China becomes the dominate superpower, simply move to either a gold standard or to digital currency (which like it or not is probably the future).
I'm probably missing a bunch of stuff - so what is your opinion? Yea or nay?
Just follow the constitution.
Feds take care of border, military, foreign THREATS. Period.
Everything else is up to the states and local government.
What’s good for NYC may not be good for Bozeman Montana.
And vice versa.
And who is going to foot current debt?
You do realize that, states that have largest stockpiles of WOMD, in whatever form, will immediately announce themselves as savers of democracy and protectors of the free world and the rest of the states will have to submit to them?
And, you'll likely end with 50 different currencies.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,944,809 times
Reputation: 16466
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
And who is going to foot current debt?
You do realize that, states that have largest stockpiles of WOMD, in whatever form, will immediately announce themselves as savers of democracy and protectors of the free world and the rest of the states will have to submit to them?
And, you'll likely end with 50 different currencies.
Yes, the nukes are an issue. That's why I suggested an entity to manage defense separately. States like CA, FL and TX would become superpowers if they grabbed the fleets. And we are already fighting federal tyranny, it's not much different from fighting petty tyrants like Newsome and Abbott.
Would 50 currencies be bad? Every other country has one. But we could agree to a mutual currency.
The Federal debt would just go away. The investors and oligarchs would be left holding an empty bag. You know this (collapse) is probably going to happen eventually anyway. Why not control the implosion like with Brexit, rather than waiting for it all to blow up in our faces.
What happens if we just "get rid" of the Federal Government?
Good things. VERY good things.
The federal government needs to be exactly where the founders of this nation intended it to be. My personal opinion is that it actually needs to be where the anti-federalist founders of the nation intended it to be.
United we stand ( federal).
Divided we fall ( state seceding).
Clearly being cohesive beats the later.
I used to think that way. But the last 5 years or so its has become obvious that trying and failing at cohesive is the problem. I am all for 50 states seceding. But at the very least we need to go back to what the founding fathers intended. All the stuff added on since then has benefited those in the federal government and those at the top.
American citizens can remove a govt from power any time they like...the problems are, the govt has become so powerful, its going to fight back, its not going to just give up its control, plus, the act of removing a govt from power looks a lot like domestic terrorism on the surface to many people.
To answer OP's question... The result would be peace on earth
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.