crashfrog writes:1) They lack natural purpose. Contra Jon, we
don't need an additional level of bureaucracy between the local and national level because there is no such thing as an issue whose natural scope is, say, exactly no larger or smaller than a rectangular area the size of Wyoming.
State highways, state waterways.
crashfrog writes:2) They breed legal confusion. Is it morally worse to murder a person in California than to murder that same person in Illinois?
3) They promote a race to the bottom.
Those are arguments about the scope of state government, rather than about the existence of state government.
crashfrog writes:4) They're anti-democratic. The most powerful man in the Senate is Max Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee and therefore in a position to unilaterally veto
every piece of legislation in Congress.
Nonsense. That is a problem with senate rules, not with there being states.
I am better represented in Washington by my state's senators than I am by my representatives. At least senatorial districts cannot be gerrymandered.
crashfrog writes:5) They're insufficient in scope. Perhaps as many as ten million Americans do not reside in any state, but because of the misapprehension that the United States is a nation of united states, these Americans have no representation in Congress, no ability to shape policy or express their legislative preference, but are nevertheless taxed to support the activities of the government that they have little electoral input into.
I'll grant that is a problem, but it could be resolved without eliminating the concept of states.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
™ Version 4.2