All of my problems would be solved if.....

we had no federal government. Am I turning into a republican? Just think...no military, no federal taxes, independent trade agreements, school systems, no feds, no spooks, Mary and Sue can marry(here), no guns(here), God available when requested, all those federal laws, judges..poof..gone..

They just do it by deficit financing and pass the bill on to the future.

no federal meat inspection system, no Centers for Disease Control, no Coast Guard, no, no, no

50 little states with a hodge podge of conflicting (more so than now) laws.

taking away the guns is government interfering.

government isnt the problem, corrupt and greedy government is

in Mass., and we have the National Guard, and toll roads, and there are several like-minded states neighboring, and it makes sense (to me) that if the entire country is broken down into compatable parts, it would be so much simpler, and harder to corrupt, and easier to build a consensus, and easier to provide for those in need.

would be solved if there was no humanity...think about it

other 20% groveling for food.

1. Local governments are easier to corrupt, not harder. Think of the old westerns where the local sherrif is owned by the local rancher. Who stops them from abusing their power? - the Federal Marshal
2. Every state would have its own military and wars would be more common as each state tried to make its own empire. Not only that but neighboring countries, such as Mexico and Canada would gobble up states close to them because of their national armies
3. Federal taxes are more progressive than state taxes. Unless you are very wealthy, you are probably getting more in federal benefits than you are paying in federal taxes. Like now, states would lose their Federal aid and be forced to either raise their own taxes or slash benefits.
4. I am not sure what you mean by independent trade agreements. Would NY make agreements with Canada and Iceland? What happens to prosperity when Iowa puts a tariff on their corn, or worse yet, Ohio, Illinois, and Pa charge for transporting through them.
5. For every progressive state where gays can marry, there probably would be five states where they would be sent to state prisons just for being gay. Would that not concern you? Without the Federal Government to prevent it, about 20 states would like to legalize chattel slavery.
6. How exactly are you negatively impacted by Federal Laws and/or judges? Which ones?

Seems unlikely. The issues I deal with daily aren't typically federal government issues.

And how many new problems would you have? No social safety-net, never-ending war between the states (if they even existed - we'd probably just have been invaded by other countries a long time ago). No federal legal protection, no social security, no Bill of Rights.

I really do.

But the fact remains that we live in a world dominated by huge, multinational corporations. We live in a world where our country is emeshed in web of relationships with other countries.

In short, we need a strong federal government. Only a strong federal government can set policy and control large corporations and set international policy (granted the policy recently has been bad, but we still need a policy).

If we lived in a Jeffersonian world (the kind of America he imagined) filled with family farms and small business, and we were still relatively isolated from the rest of the world, that original sense of federalism would work.

But that's not the world we live in.

Jefferson knew his vision was crumbling during his own life. He recognized it. He looked askance at the rise of big banks and huge financial institutions that began before and during his tenure as president.

That being said, I do believe that we should allow states a certain amount of leeway in setting some policy. However, no state has the right to ever, ever infringe upon the rights guaranteed to all individuals under the Constitution. Federalism was never meant to mean absolute state soverignty, which how so many foolish and idiotic right wingers interpret it.

i had written a letter to the editor, per Harry Reids request. It bothered me because it was a very coarse, distant letter..no passion or emotion at all. When i started to re-think, re-write, i realized that my problem was with what the federal government is used to do. And if government does whatever it wants regardless of consequences to the public....why have them there at all? Send everyone home, dismantle the beast, start from where you are and deal with basic necessity and go from there.
After reading your replys i realized that my definition of 'federal government' is flawed, for i totally blew past the fact that it is there to protect. It appears i need to go back and get a better understanding of the original design and function of federal government. i'm always surprised at how much i don't know.