# USA: Do the States really matter, and should they? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254 "2006-05-25T23:31:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/21 "2006-05-28T18:41:50Z")
It is exactly the differences in state law related to second ammendment issues that has kept me from moving to either Massachusetts or Calafornia, both of which are hot beds for my profession. (electrical engineering) So having seperate states is important enough to me that I accept severe limitations on my career. Cost of living variations, especially real estate pretty well mitigate the pay differential. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/22 "2006-05-29T06:22:19Z")
Conversely, Australia has seven major States/Territories (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory- the ACT doesn’t count because the only thing there is Canberra), all of which are legislatively pretty much identical. As a general rule, what’s illegal in one state is generally illegal in all the others, and vice versa- because we have a clause in the Commonwealth Constitution that prohibits the abridgement of free trade between the States. The _details_ differ (for example, you don’t have to have an annual Roadworthy/Warrant of Fitness in Queensland, and it’s illegal to buy a knife if you’re under 16 in New South Wales), but as a general rule, one State is much like any other, which to me seems to sort of defeat the purpose of _having_ States in the first place- although the reality, again, is that Australia is too big to govern centrally, and the States were all originally Colonies of the British Empire once upon a time (specifically, until January 1st, 1901). The main reasons for shifting are generally employment, family, or lifestyle- the idea of moving out of one State because you disagree with the local laws on a particular issue is pretty unusual- the notable exceptions being the firearm laws, which are sufficiently different in the details to make shooters from QLD, VIC, or SA think twice before moving to NSW or WA, for example. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/23 "2006-05-31T17:37:28Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I don’t see how you could draw borders for states that weren’t arbitrary in some sense. Everytime you draw a line, there will be some people on one side and other people on the opposite side. We don’t have clear-cut divisions of culture, language or some other clear social barriers to link up with naturally occuring geographical barriers. [/QUOTE] Miklos Udvardy, in 1975, identified eight global “ecozones” and 203 “biogeographical provinces.” [Ecozone - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecozone) We might use those in the U.S. as a non-arbitrary starting point. After all, everywhere within a given biogeographic province will have similar climate, similar terrain, and similar forms of agriculture (if any), so all residents of one have some common concerns right there. And then the biogeographic provinces could be subdivided into states based on other, more political/sociological considerations. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/24 "2006-05-31T17:42:21Z")
[QUOTE=Happy Clam] Well, historically the states may have originally have been conceived as a confederation of independently sovereign entities, but nowadays I know of no-one outside the states who would consider it such a thing . . . [/QUOTE] What do you mean “outside the states”? We all live **inside** the states. As for the state governments as units – state politicians sometimes demand more autonomy and less federal interference but they’re far from speaking with one voice about it, and both sides of the question have support in the federal Congress; and state civil servants probably don’t feel any differently about the matter than the public at large. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/25 "2006-05-31T18:43:41Z")
Isn’t one of the purposes of the Constitution to preserve minority rights? Now that I brought it up, isn’t that one of the purposes of the House of Representatives vs. the Senate? That was the big compromise, that every state would have representatives equal to their populations, then plans were drawn up to give every state two representatives. Those two are the House and the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/26 "2006-05-31T18:54:04Z")
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever] Isn’t one of the purposes of the Constitution to preserve minority rights? [/QUOTE] Well, errmm . . . No. Not until you get to the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Bytegeist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Bytegeist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bytegeist)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/27 "2006-05-31T21:23:46Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What do you mean “outside the states”? We all live **inside** the states. [/quote] **Happy Clam** doesn’t, according to his Location tag. (By “the states” he meant “the States”, if you see what I mean.) > [@Happy Clam](#): > > Plus, wasn’t the civil war fought over exactly this issue, and the states lost and the feds won? Not quite. The Union government was not fighting to re-conquer the states and subsume their powers. As the war dragged on and on, and became more obviously about the abolition of slavery, there was a drive for the federal government to take on a larger role in guaranteeing the civil rights of U.S. citizens, even when the state governments would not. Hence the “Civil War Amendments”, 13 through 15, and their removal of some of the states’ powers — mostly their power to abridge the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Had the war ended quickly with a Union victory, I don’t know that the Amendments would ever have been proposed, let alone passed. The point being, it’s not that the feds won and the states lost. The states — at least the Northern ones who passed the Amendments without any coercion — willingly gave up their power to deny their citizens the rights found in the U.S. Constitution. Before that point, it was only the U.S. government that was bound in this way. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/28 "2006-05-31T21:49:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > It is false, but I am not rabidly against it. It is false in that much of it is arbitrary: often there are different regions in States with little in common but the fact that they just happen to be under the same political umbrella. The same goes for pretty much every nation in the world. Nations are arbitrary entities. [QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What do you mean “outside the states”? We all live **inside** the states. [/QUOTE] Actually, several billion people live outside the states. Me, for example. And I can confirm **Happy Clam** ’s assertion. We see you as one country. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/29 "2006-05-31T22:21:48Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Well, errmm . . . No. Not until you get to the 14th Amendment. [/QUOTE] Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Sweet\_Mercury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Sweet\_Mercury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sweet_Mercury)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/30 "2006-05-31T22:31:33Z")
Well, we now live in an age of ridiculously strong Federalism, so it’s only natural that one would view distinctions such as “states” as arbitrary. However, to understand why we have states, we have to look back towards the founding of this country. The colonies were _independent_ sovereignties—in the sense that they were independent of each other and at the will of the English crown. After the revolution, the Articles of Confederacy defined this “country” as a loose association of independent states. Each state had it’s own money, banking system, etc. And even after the dissolution of the AoC and the instituting of the Constitution, the Federal government still submitted a great deal of power to State government. This is important because our country is founded on the principle of individual freedom. According to many political philosophers, Rousseau most notably among them, the larger the government and the landmass it needs to govern, the less conducive to personal freedoms it can be. A government that is essentially a loose federation of autonomous states, that allows people to move freely among them, is the best way to ensure democratic freedom. As one poster already says: you don’t like the government of your particular state? You’re free to move to one that better suits your wants as a citizen. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/31 "2006-05-31T22:43:50Z")
Look at local government. Local government is analogous to citizens as the federal government is to…well…the federal government. Cities are where policies that most directly impact people happen. They certainly aren’t the arbiters of large goals (for the most part), but if your city changes its trash day to thursday instead of wednesday, it directly impacts you. Cities get money to run from whatever profit they can generate and from the state. The state, in turn, gets its money from the federal government. If your state is in the hinterlands or is a slowly dying industrial state, you’ve got a lot less money than say, New York (even before 9/11 and the HUGE influx of dollars from Homeland Security). The federal government therefore has a way to influence what more local governments do. That’s why some cities have entered pacts to refuse to recognize the Patriot Act because it’s unconstitutional. Part of it is because they believe that it is wrong and that they can have a moment of civil disobedience (although what would actually happen if the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and CIA came into town to enforce it and the municipal cops got in the way would be rather interesting), yet another reason that a city would do it is to get a little bit more sovereignty. Relatively few cities have the deep pockets to pay for municipal improvements. They end up taking out big loans from banks, developers, and investors at very high rates, and then default on the property, letting the bank, developer, or investor get that property after the work has been done. This is the case for a few golf courses in my area. In our government’s system, the city is the basic block and the little guy. They also get trampled on. There. Rant done. God, it started off so useful, too. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/32 "2006-05-31T22:59:35Z")
[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury] Well, we now live in an age of ridiculously strong Federalism, so it’s only natural that one would view distinctions such as “states” as arbitrary. [/QUOTE] Nitpick: I think you’re giving the word “federalism” the opposite of its currently accepted meaning. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/33 "2006-05-31T23:04:02Z")
It’s not true that cities get their money from the states and states get their money from the feds. States get their money from state income taxes and state sales taxes. Cities mostly get their money from sales taxes and property taxes. They may get some federal money for some things, but the vast majority of state and local services are paid for by taxes imposed by the states and localities. And cities generally don’t take out loans from banks to fund capital projects, they issue bonds. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2006, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/34 "2006-06-01T02:25:10Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines] There is a real but I think false belief in “stateness” in the US. We think of them as “real” and not merely administrative units. [/QUOTE] Say what you like, but there is a very real and definite sense of being a Texan down here. It stems in large part from our pre-US activities and identity, and as such, isn’t really very related to being a state. I suspect Louisiana (or at least parts of it), California and Hawaii have similar identities. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2006, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/35 "2006-06-01T02:36:13Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] It’s not true that cities get their money from the states and states get their money from the feds. States get their money from state income taxes and state sales taxes. Cities mostly get their money from sales taxes and property taxes. They may get some federal money for some things, but the vast majority of state and local services are paid for by taxes imposed by the states and localities. And cities generally don’t take out loans from banks to fund capital projects, they issue bonds. [/QUOTE] You’re definitely correct on the last point. I was on a roll and neglected to delete the “banks” part. Municipal governments (at least some) do get their bonds from state or other locak governments, though. [Link](http://moneycentral.msn.com/quickref/quickref.asp?Cat=10&SelCat=3&RefType=0&QAMode=2&Topic=2&Sub=5) Let me see if I can’t dig up any information on cities defaulting on property from said bonds. Hm..I’ve got nothing, so I’ll happily retract my statement. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2006, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/36 "2006-06-01T03:00:16Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] A matter of occasional debate here. Many of us Northern Californians would like it if the South wasn’t dragging us to the right and trying to grab our water. [/QUOTE] Or the north dragging us to the left and trying to grab our tax revenues. But hey, that’s the stuff that binds us together. Love it or leave it. ---
**Author:** ![Sweet\_Mercury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@Sweet\_Mercury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sweet_Mercury)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2006, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/37 "2006-06-01T06:09:46Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Nitpick: I think you’re giving the word “federalism” the opposite of its currently accepted meaning. [/QUOTE] Possibly. I basically mean that we live in an age where the federal government is a mighty, seemingly untouchable behemoth. It’s probably for the best that you pointed that out though, people might have gotten confused. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2006, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254/38 "2006-06-01T06:33:09Z")
[QUOTE=Northern Piper] Huh? How is [Kelo v. New London](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=04-108) a “trampling of state sovereignty”?? I would say it’s just the opposite: residents of Connecticut sued the state of Connecticut in state court under the federal Bill of Rights to restrain a particular state action, condmenation of property under state eminent domain. The Supreme Court of the United States eventually held that the state action was not contrary to the takings clause of the federal Constitution, and therefore the State of Connecticut could condemn the property. Now, that may lead the inhabitants of some states to tighten up the rules of eminent domain under state law or state constitutions, but _Kelo_ leaves that to the wisdom of each state and its inhabitants. Isn’t that exactly the sort of local state decision-making that you are advocating for, **Saint Cad**? [/QUOTE] Yes it is, that is why after mentioning _Kelo_ I immediately said > [@](#): > > with many states tightening their eminate domain laws it looks like you didn’t finish reading that sentence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/usa-do-the-states-really-matter-and-should-they/358254.md?page=1)