The UK experience with Brexit has shown that the creation (or reestablishment, in our case) of national borders is great in terms of job-creation. You need a lot more bureaucrats to fart about trying to create new rules, lots of lawyers to argue about them in court, a lot more customs and immigration officials to check passports and goods crossing the border, lots of IT people to design and implement border systems (which will never really work as specified), a lot more staff in haulage firms to deal with all the new form-filling and a lot more truckers to make up for all the time wasted waiting at crossing points.
Of course, there is the small question of who the hell pays for all this completely unnecessary additional overhead. But similarly to how "FREEDOM!" is the rallying cry of a certain portion of the American public, so "SOVEREIGNTY!" is what their British soul-mates howl whenever you mention these inconvenient facts.
To be fair that's how states are supposed to work in america. First and foremost we are a federation of states. That means the states act as the sovereign of their lands and the federal goverment acts as an interconnecting force that keeps them bound together and preventing one state from warring with another.
After the civil war state pride started to fade and what replaced it was a greater reliance on the federal system.
How to back away from this clutterfuck, it to give the states more power than the federal system. Give the people the power of moving to what state suits their needs more. As you can see in the Californian exodus. Removing most of the encompassing power of the federal goverment will allow states to act more autonomously and utilize their resources more effectively than when a centralized power tries to meddle in it.
The system as it was designed has been bastardized the states were supposed to basically rule themselves with a referee. The federal government's powers were very limited and specific.
The role of the executive branch is to make the quick decisions. Something that putting it up to a vote would limit the response time.
The rest is up the the legislative branch and the judicial branch serving as the referee making sure they dont break the constitution or amendments.
We need to cut back on 90% of new laws being put forward through the houses and senate. Reform the house/senate so there is term limits, as well as the staffers to said congressmen and senators. Also make the congress people actually read the laws before voting on them. So no more 1000 page mega bullshit acts.
City states would be too hard to control. They could he radically different from the host country. Remember America is still a country it just that the states get most of the domestic power. Cities are too dense to be trusted with autonomy. Meaning cities that need X resource would screw over other areas to get that resources. Best to make the cities beholden to states. Instead of turning cities into states
What do you think would be a good name to rename the United States?
← View full post
Just change the states to sovereign countries since that's where we're headed anyway. Like what happened to U.S.S.R.
--
Boojum
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The UK experience with Brexit has shown that the creation (or reestablishment, in our case) of national borders is great in terms of job-creation. You need a lot more bureaucrats to fart about trying to create new rules, lots of lawyers to argue about them in court, a lot more customs and immigration officials to check passports and goods crossing the border, lots of IT people to design and implement border systems (which will never really work as specified), a lot more staff in haulage firms to deal with all the new form-filling and a lot more truckers to make up for all the time wasted waiting at crossing points.
Of course, there is the small question of who the hell pays for all this completely unnecessary additional overhead. But similarly to how "FREEDOM!" is the rallying cry of a certain portion of the American public, so "SOVEREIGNTY!" is what their British soul-mates howl whenever you mention these inconvenient facts.
--
LloydAsher
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
To be fair that's how states are supposed to work in america. First and foremost we are a federation of states. That means the states act as the sovereign of their lands and the federal goverment acts as an interconnecting force that keeps them bound together and preventing one state from warring with another.
After the civil war state pride started to fade and what replaced it was a greater reliance on the federal system.
How to back away from this clutterfuck, it to give the states more power than the federal system. Give the people the power of moving to what state suits their needs more. As you can see in the Californian exodus. Removing most of the encompassing power of the federal goverment will allow states to act more autonomously and utilize their resources more effectively than when a centralized power tries to meddle in it.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
raisinbran
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I absolutely agree!
The system as it was designed has been bastardized the states were supposed to basically rule themselves with a referee. The federal government's powers were very limited and specific.
--
LloydAsher
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The role of the executive branch is to make the quick decisions. Something that putting it up to a vote would limit the response time.
The rest is up the the legislative branch and the judicial branch serving as the referee making sure they dont break the constitution or amendments.
We need to cut back on 90% of new laws being put forward through the houses and senate. Reform the house/senate so there is term limits, as well as the staffers to said congressmen and senators. Also make the congress people actually read the laws before voting on them. So no more 1000 page mega bullshit acts.
--
darefu
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Couldn't agree more, butt you're going to have to do something about the propaganda media to keep them from tilting the issues or views.
Sounds good. Let's break it down further to the county or city level so the victims left behind aren't subjected to state tyranny.
--
LloydAsher
1 year ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
City states would be too hard to control. They could he radically different from the host country. Remember America is still a country it just that the states get most of the domestic power. Cities are too dense to be trusted with autonomy. Meaning cities that need X resource would screw over other areas to get that resources. Best to make the cities beholden to states. Instead of turning cities into states