5 ms·
> *Our way of life just doesn't support hyper local governments [...] No one has the stomach or the constitution to go back to being local farmers. Er... guys,
by wott 8y ago
> *Our way of life just doesn't support hyper local governments [...] No one has the stomach or the constitution to go back to being local farmers.
Er... guys, your American states are as large as European countries (the largest ones being in the range of France, Germany, Spain down to UK, the smaller ones in the range of Switzerland down to Belgium). As bit less populated (and even that is not really a drawback since it typically means more available resources per inhabitant), but otherwise... why wouldn't they be able to support themselves? Furthermore, having different governments/countries does not block the flow of goods.
- bilbo0s 8y agoOK. I'm going to assume that you aren't American. Imagine a European country... a lot of space right? Now imagine it's in the middle of a desert. Literally. OK, do you have that picture in your head? Great! Now... imagine that it's ALSO landlocked. If you've followed along to this point, then I want you to answer the following question in as honest a fashion as you can: How many, "resources per inhabitant", would that nation realistically have available? Continuing with our thought experiment, imagine there was no federal government to provide the structure for, say, Texas, to share its energy resources with other states... now, ask yourself why Texas would continue to give Idaho free energy resources? Should Texans continue the charitable practice, in exchange for a few Idaho potatoes? There are just better markets for those resources. And I wouldn't blame Texans one bit for availing themselves of the opportunities those markets present. Governments, and common sense, can, and do, block the flow of goods. What I'm trying to point out, is that I don't think you've thought this whole thing through.