I am with Kenny.

It is not for politicians-sake that I bid to keep the states, but for the sake of ordinary people. If there is just one monolithic rule over the whole continent, then when it becomes draconian one has nowhere to escape. With the states, at least if one state makes unbearable decrees against one's lifestyle and religious/ethical principles, then one could flee to another state (a current example is euthanasia: if one is forbidden to die in their current state, then they could do so in another). Moreover, states would think twice before issuing draconian legislation because they would know that their population will leave if they do.

On the other hand, if more powers are further shifted to local government, then one has more options and if the regime gets too tough, one only needs to move to the next suburb to escape it.

This is an interesting article and I agree with the majority of issues raised. It raises many different and diverse facets to consider. Therein lays the main hurdle to change. To change something in a diverse polarised society where we have been educated by vested interest saying, there is you and me opposing THEM is virtually impossible.

I believe to evoke change we have to find and change a single issue that favours the majority in a positive way that will entice sufficient support to be successful. This would have to be done against vested interest with deep pockets and the majority of us with entrenched individual prejudice.

In my opinion there is only one thing that has sufficient impact to motivate that change and that is GOD. We all worship it every day every day and spend a lifetime winning its favours and the things it can do for us. We worship the high priests and priestesses with envy and desire to have as much access to GOD as they do.

Yes if only we could more of the GOD money!

The reality is the majority do not get their fair share of our productive wealth and are enslaved by those who control a disproportionate share such as (as the article points out) corporate banks. Haven't they made a mess of things. The individuals that are rewarded the most are the ones least likely to create wealth.

My suggestion is simple; restrict/limit an individual’s annual access to the GOD money. The majority will have a greater fluctuating share linked to productivity. A small minority will a hell of a decrease in annual income but still will be very well off. Ensure everyone gets enough and those who excel get more, but not more than their share.

Get rid of the states, insists that people be more involved in local government promoting a DIY philosophy. Introduce a proportional representative nationally.

The article began with a silly “after dinner mint” analogy, mentioned “ many electors [who] do not bother to vote” (if you don’t vote aren’t you a potential elector?), and went downhill from there.

A rare instance where most of the posters, Yuyutsu, Ateday, Kenny, Atman, Lewis and Pericles, made much more sense than the original article.

P.S. Kenny, I disagree. Taxation should also be left with the states, which should annually then kick in to the feds an amount pro rata to their population.