Why don't states in the USA have more autonomy? Like, the military should be the only thing we share in common

>it'll encourage more local businesses to form,
The country is in dire need of this. Employment and innovation is so scattered. It's also sad how some cities suck private company dick to get them to open up branches in their city.
Interesting idea, tho, user.

Early rulers were military leaders who taxed farmers for killing gangs of predatory nomads that made it hell to farm otherwise.
They were POLICE who would simply kill instead of arresting you.
If there was an interesting person in his domain, a ruler could send troops to fetch them
then say "Do your thing, don't disappoint or that guy will chop you up."
He could send for the hottest farmers' daughters as concubines and kill their fathers if they protested.

Interestingly, this is how the first drafts of the US government worked.
It turned out to be extremely inefficient, with laws being nigh impossible to establish, and each state going its own way with pretty much everything, including money, transports and services.
And this was with just 13 states mind you. Try now with 50 and see how two states like Cali and Texas will rule every other, while also engaging in permanent bickering over every subject.

Okay....
Well, I was thinking if the federal gov't just fucked off then states would be allowed to run themselves however without concerning themselves with other states. But, you're right, it would be impossible to set any kind of standard. And as I was kind of speaking to here , some states would probably end up 3rd world tier. But I mostly just made this thread because laws are kind of confusing here where state law says something is legal, but federal law will say otherwise. I thought maybe more autonomy would simplify things, but if I took a second to think, it's more obvious it would complicate things.

I imagine the provinces in Canada don't exercise their confederacy to the limit because of the complications that arise from doing so?

Because if you had any mind to read history you would know that the US already tried that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Now, never post ever again, or risk being called retarded.

>risk being called retarded.
like i give a fuck.

There is not a lot of difference between the US and Canada in this regard. The main difference is that Canadian states still have some regalian powers

Yes, I'm well aware you're quite accommodated to being called a remedial waste of skin, however it's quite customary for one to possess just a tiny shred of self-respect before ever considering to engage another human in debate.

Okay?

Thanks.

Why did Shay's Rebellion show the weakness of a confederacy?

>How dare you ask questions and try to educate yourself
You're the retarded one here

>Okay?
>Thanks.
is this the new "sweatie?" lol

He's an American, he should already be educated, you fucking retard.

I know that Canadians don't have a sense of national identity or even brain-cells in quantity greater than room temperature, but it should be recommended that you know the history of your nation, especially something so vital as its founding
Because it elaborated that when giving states too much power it's impossible for any central authority to organize anything.

The rebellion occurred because states alone acting had acted against the common interest of the people.

>Because it elaborated that when giving states too much power it's impossible for any central authority to organize anything.
I follow that.
>The rebellion occurred because states alone acting had acted against the common interest of the people.
I don't see how a central gov't remedies that.

The major downfall of the Articles of Confederation was simply weakness. The federal government, under the Articles, was too weak to enforce their laws and therefore had no power. The Continental Congress had borrowed money to fight the Revolutionary War and could not repay their debts.

From google.

And so?
You're calling him a retard because he doesn't know and he's asking a question. I assume you're not thinking it through, but it is quite counterproductive to do so.
And no amount of pedantic comebacks are going to make this type of thinking any less toxic

>And no amount of pedantic comebacks are going to make this type of thinking any less toxic
>ur toxic and therefore toxic
You ability to reason is astounding beyond belief, and I must say I'm not surprised.

>And so?
This is but one problem in a list of problems you're facing.
>You're calling him a retard because he doesn't know and he's asking a question

He's not asking a question, and that's obvious enough.

He's a proto-commie skeptic of the formation of the US and here to debate it without any prior knowledge of its formation.

So please, don't try to be a big man, your point has already been proven, that being you're an overly emotional coward with insecurities larger than his spine.

See, I think that's interesting. A central government is more powerful and better at controlling the general public, but a bigger government can't serve their people as well imo. I find it strange that the Americans at the time were rebelling against a local government that didn't serve their interests, and ended up taking 10 steps back by getting a large government. I guess not all rebellions can end with concessions being made.

>USA have more autonomy?
anyone can make a hat.
make a cigar not many, but all nations do.
you know that right ?

It's all a matter of opinion.

People always want to cause a stir over nothing, they will scrupulize and see fit to create circumstances to their benefit from this unrest created for a distaste for an existing system.

It's like why people prefer homeopathy (which has been proven over time to be entirely placebo effect) over real physicians over the simple fact it's more personal. It doesn't matter if it's better, the sheep will flock to a shepherd who guides them, be it one who disguises himself, or an authentic one.