Perhaps America should be a commonwealth

Commonwealth: A group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

The American federal government has grown very large, and with size comes inefficiency, waste, and corruption. Perhaps the best future for America would be to become a commonwealth of independent nations, each with economic ties to the other, but with their own separate governing body. Less bureaucratic red tape would mean less waste, and more efficiency. I very much doubt this will happen of course, but it may be the best answer.

Originally posted by bill718
Commonwealth: A group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

The American federal government has grown very large, and with size comes inefficiency, waste, and corruption. Perhaps the best future for America would be to become a commonwealth of independent nations, each wi ...[text shortened]... nd more efficiency. I very much doubt this will happen of course, but it may be the best answer.

Why don't you put that in Obama's suggestion box?

I'm sure he will get a good laugh.

Originally posted by bill718
Commonwealth: A group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

The American federal government has grown very large, and with size comes inefficiency, waste, and corruption. Perhaps the best future for America would be to become a commonwealth of independent nations, each wi ...[text shortened]... nd more efficiency. I very much doubt this will happen of course, but it may be the best answer.

Yeah, this would be great, if all the states were equal. If you live in one of the more poorly run states, then I guess it's just too bad for you, right?

I live in Arizona, so I know from where I speak. I don't want a strong state government with a weak federal government. This state's been run by idiots for too many years now. The federal government is the only thing making things tolerable here.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yeah, this would be great, if all the states were equal. If you live in one of the more poorly run states, then I guess it's just too bad for you, right?

I live in Arizona, so I know from where I speak. I don't want a strong state government with a weak federal government. This state's been run by idiots for too many years now. The federal government is the only thing making things tolerable here.

Right, so since no one is "equal" then we just keep things the way they are, that is, seeking the ever elusive "equal" status.

Originally posted by bill718
The American federal government has grown very large, and with size comes inefficiency, waste, and corruption.

I think you would be very hard pressed to actually prove that. Larger organizations are generally more efficient than small ones. It is true that they are often more wasteful, but that is because they are so efficient they can afford to be wasteful. As for corruption, I think you will find that the states are just as corrupt as the federal government if not more so because there are fewer people watching them.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you would be very hard pressed to actually prove that. Larger organizations are generally more efficient than small ones. It is true that they are often more wasteful, but that is because they are so efficient they can afford to be wasteful. As for corruption, I think you will find that the states are just as corrupt as the federal government if not more so because there are fewer people watching them.

The more power at ones disposal the more corrupt they typically become.

It's like the Lord of the Rings. Whatever you do, don't put on that ring.

Originally posted by bill718
Commonwealth: A group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

The American federal government has grown very large, and with size comes inefficiency, waste, and corruption. Perhaps the best future for America would be to become a commonwealth of independent nations, each wi ...[text shortened]... nd more efficiency. I very much doubt this will happen of course, but it may be the best answer.

I suspect that the reason the founders were not enthused about the term commonwealth, is that is what the English system was called. If you will read the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the Constitution, the definition is almost the same as you set forth for a Commonwealth.

Even the US Constitution emphasizes State sovereignty, with certain specific duties and powers granted to the central government. It can be argued in favor of any system of government, that it has some advantages over others, but at the same time each has its drawbacks.

So long as there was the liberty to move freely between the sovereign States, I can see no reason why the idea is wrong, even if the States aren't totally equal. When deTocqueville toured the US, and wrote Democracy in America, he observed the very clear differences North to South, but the people of both regions seemed happy with the differences.

This seems to be true in Europe where nations are small and close, but each enjoys its own distinct culture and economy.

Originally posted by whodey
Right, so since no one is "equal" then we just keep things the way they are, that is, seeking the ever elusive "equal" status.

My point was that the states are not equal. Therefore, this is a horrible idea.

Wouldn't you want to have a strong central government so that excess food, resources, etc., in one state could be easily sent to another? You know, "to promote the general welfare"? Where have you heard this before?

Originally posted by Suzianne
My point was that the states are not equal. Therefore, this is a horrible idea.

Wouldn't you want to have a strong central government so that excess food, resources, etc., in one state could be easily sent to another? You know, "to promote the general welfare"? Where have you heard this before?

You may as well make the same argument for a one world government. That way the third world would be elevated to the industrialized world.

Is that what you advocate?

With increased cenralization of government comes decreased representation and personal freedom.

Is socioencomic affluence worth this?

Put another way, what is more desirable? Freedom or money?

Luckily for collectivists, most people seem greedy and/or prefer safety over freedom

Originally posted by whodey
The more power at ones disposal the more corrupt they typically become.

It's like the Lord of the Rings. Whatever you do, don't put on that ring.

I bet you cannot provide any actual evidence of this. It wasn't even true in the Lord of the Rings.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I bet you cannot provide any actual evidence of this. It wasn't even true in the Lord of the Rings.

Why do you think Frodo couldn't throw the ring into the fire and providence had to destroy the ring using Gollum?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I bet you cannot provide any actual evidence of this. It wasn't even true in the Lord of the Rings.

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

James Madison

Eventually power gives way to corruption. It is only human nature. This is why the US adopted Federalism verses a king. They thought it imperative to divide power in order to help thwart corruption and abuse.

Perhaps you prefer a king.

Originally posted by bill718
Commonwealth: A group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.

The American federal government has grown very large, and with size comes inefficiency, waste, and corruption. Perhaps the best future for America would be to become a commonwealth of independent nations, each wi ...[text shortened]... nd more efficiency. I very much doubt this will happen of course, but it may be the best answer.

Did you consider at all the enormous advantages of being able to marshal all of the resources of the entire country to geopolitical purposes. Your 50 independent countries would weaklings on the world stage and each would have almost no geopolitical influence outside of the western hemisphere. Just as the Roman Empire didn't dissolve itself out of choice and Walmart and Microsoft don't break up out of choice, it would be the height of foolishness for the US to give up the advantages that come from a central authority being able to leverage $18 Trillion in GDP and the most powerful military on Earth.

Case in point - The Indian and Australian navies refused to defend Great Britain in World War II.

At least I think I read that somewhere.

Originally posted by sh76
Did you consider at all the enormous advantages of being able to marshal all of the resources of the entire country to geopolitical purposes. Your 50 independent countries would weaklings on the world stage and each would have almost no geopolitical influence outside of the western hemisphere. Just as the Roman Empire didn't dissolve itself out of choice and Wa ...[text shortened]... al authority being able to leverage $18 Trillion in GDP and the most powerful military on Earth.

Not 50 independent countries, I was thinking of about 5-6. The disadvantages of being not being able to leverage that 18 trillion can be offset with smaller more efficient governments, with far less gridlock. As far as the military muscle...how necessary is that? Consider countries such as Australia, Canada, France etc. They're military machines are tiny compared to America's, and I don't see anyone attacking them.

None of this matters though, it's not going to happen anyway.