Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious answer: it is hardly a given that a "higher power" will favor your idea of "good" over your idea of "bad". Or even if it does, that it will always continue to do so and will always continue to enforce your preferences, even if your preferences someday change. All that a higher power will enforce is uniformity, which could just as easily be (or later become) uniformly bad for you as uniformly good for you. Wit…
I just don't understand having "United" states at that point. In your vision... which I'm not arguing for or against - I can't fathom a reason in which we don't just break up into countries. As it stands, the states with the highest levels of education and economic output in the U.S. truly do tend to prop up the states with the lowest levels of education and output. However, the states being propped up also seem to a…
The point of it was to defend the independence of small groups against the large. When local opinions changed about the "right" way to live, which history shows happens again and again, this system allowed the local group to change how they lived without requiring the "permission" of other states (internal to the union or external). If your own group (or you) changed, and you no longer liked your local state as much as some other where they made "better" choices, you would have the option to vote with your feet, as hundreds of millions have over the centuries. This system also attracted vast numbers of people from other places who chose not the "country" but the specific state that most suited them.