Smaller states would make it easier for Americans to move

Post Reply New Topic

Although this discussion applies to the USA, I do believe there are movements to create smaller states in sovereign countries worldwide.

In India, there are movements to create new (small) states, but these are based on cultural, linguistic, economic, ethnic, and political grounds. It has absolutely nothing to do with internal migration.

As an outside observe, I too feel it's more symbolic now. Take the Texas military forces, for example - I can't imagine them getting into a hypothetical conflict with an outside power, representing the state of Texas as a sovereign entity.

Over here, the state of Chattisgarh created a tribal militia called the Salwa Judum to fight the Maoists, and the supreme court declared it unconstitutional.

Europe seems to have two contradictory trends. The nations are trying to merge into a "European Union", but within each country there is agitation for more local autonomy- the Basques in Spain, the Breton in France, the Welsh and Scots in Britain, all want more independence.

These seemingly contradictory trends might actually aid abett each other. Middle sized entities like France and Germany might dissolve away while both small local areas, and the big centralized continent wide government both get more power making Europe more like the United States with the USA's Federal and State governments.

The Texans I know seem pretty convinced that they could (and perhaps should) exist independently as a sovereign state. The state militias, in principle, are the back-up forces for if we get in a serious enough war, and are also used to handle things within a state that are beyond the capabilities of local police forces. And even though the divisions might seem more "symbolic" to you, we do retain a significant amount of local autonomy. No, each state does not carry on its own foreign policy or maintain a full-fledged independent military, but the state governments are in charge of almost all of their own internal concerns. Education, a lot of infrastructure such as roads, taxation, commerce regulation, and a number of other things are handled at state levels rather than by the federal government.

Thanks, I have a better understanding of the system now. I was just wondering if there was more federal-state conflict over there like how it is in India. For example, I've read reports of the DEA burning marijuana plants of patients in California even though that state has legalised the narcotic for medicinal purposes.

I was also stating from an issue of sovereignty rather than autonomy in the states. The US constitution states that the federal government and the states 'share sovereignty', and I've found that concept hard to digest.

If a state's government is in conflict with the central government in India, the central government has every right to remove that government from power and impose president's rule. Also, development projects, educational projects, etc, are undertaken by both - the centre and the state. For example, the metro project in my city is funded by the central government, the state government, and a private limited liability company. There are many educational boards, the main ones being the central board, the state board, and the Indian certificate (which is private). So you see, the power of the state is limited, although the supreme court has made a ruling recently stating that the central government may not impose president's rule over a state unless its government collapses, or a major event occurs, such as communal riots and separatism.

The development and evolution of the EU is an interesting topic, and I think it's too premature to assume what might occur. The conflict between unionists and federalists has been recurring throughout history, but I think Europe has evolved to the point that a proper consensus will occur rather than conflict. After ETA's ceasefire, I've begun to feel positive that conflict within the European continent will soon be a thing of the past.

It bothers me to spend my whole life in one place, and yet to relocate seems a logistical nightmare. Need a job before you can afford a place to live, but unlikely you'll be offered a job unless you already have a place locally.

There are more than a few English in Britain who would like more independence from the European super-state as well.

I think Texas COULD, but I don't see the SHOULD part so much. (To be fair, I think that Rhode Island could probably handle independence if we just let it.)