4 ms·

These seem like arguments to eliminate the federal government entirely. If the citizens don't want it and don't care about people in other states, then we aren'

These seem like arguments to eliminate the federal government entirely. If the citizens don't want it and don't care about people in other states, then we aren't really a union. Meanwhile, the voter in Alaska has a huge portion of their infrastructure funded by tax payers in other states. > Also if they were federally managed that would likely mean the feds giving that money for the states to manage It is done that way today because no state collects enough gas tax to actually fund their own roads and bridges. All money comes with strings attached, it's one of the characteristics of money.

SllX 5y ago
The Feds do things besides move our money around different States to inefficiently spend on local infrastructure. If you want to go all in on the eliminating the Federal government, you’d have to also go after the Military, Federal Courts and the Department of State.
Xeoncross 5y ago
> then we aren't really a union A republic union in military protection and legal/political bridges/agreements. If the fed is in charge of everything, then there is no union, just a large federal state. This is what we're becoming as everyone places their hope in Congress for solutions. Like most large countries with a single rule instead of unified states, we're going to regret this more as time goes on. (Excluding countries smaller in population than a single US state)