|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:I hate to ask a question I could research myself but I'm at work. How does say France or Germany organise the state? How about Australia? Something like that may work better since I don't think any of thier subdivisions or "states" were ever sovereign entities. A few French subdivisions were sovereign entities at one point or another but outside of fringe federalist or separatist groups nobody really thinks that matters at all.
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:I may have too much faith in the American public, but I don't buy in to the idea that the states would turn on each other if they were independent. Not everyone's a power hungry politician. If my home state was attempting to annex Arkansas I sincerely doubt there would be a majority supporting it. Even if they wouldn't turn on each other militarily they'd certainly gently caress each other over other ways. Right now the states have to deal with each other civilly and there is a structure in place for that to occur, but once that gets taken away all bets are off. If New York wants to start charging extortionate fees on shipping through Buffalo what can Illinois really do about it? It's not like maritime shipping can go through anywhere else. It's either pay up or start asking Michigan and Canada for airspace rights for their bombers. The real danger is that many of these newly empowered state governments would turn on their own populaces, or at least the "undesirable" elements of them. The Federal government enforces a baseline level of decency on the states, and while some of them would respect those norms on their own there's a lot of them that only do it because they're forced to. Gay Utahns had better hope that California accepts refugees and Hispanic Arizonans should prepare to get poo poo on mightily.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This isn't true at all. States rights is problematic because human and civil rights issues shouldn't be left up to states to decide. That's a pretty good argument for making the UN an actual governing body.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This would be both cool and good.  Bob James posted:Not necessarily. The difference is that US Federal Government actually exists, and has centuries of track record to look at when asking "Should this governing body exist and enforce human rights standards on its member states?" The UN as a functional government is entirely theoretical, and could be an unworkable shitshow. Although an alternative presents itself here, making all states US member states. Saudi Arabia shouldn't be allowed to poo poo on its populace any more than Texas should. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:The UN as a protector of Human Rights? It's D&D naive to think that a group consisting of the following countries (current membership of the UN Human Right Council!) are going to do anything about Human Rights except for take them away You'll notice my post after that saying that instead we should just make all states US member states instead. Also, you need to work on being able to discern realposts from fakeposts
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 16:36
|
|