Should state governments in Australia and the US be abolished?
967569
Hey I really like Australia My family nearly moved down there to live for good!  But play with your Kangaroos and leave MY BLOODY STATES ALONE!\n\nI absolutely believe in State Government and their powers!  It is how America was built and how it prospers!  It is why Louisiania has Parishes instead of Counties.  One thing will not do for all!  Look at the pathetic attempt to improve our schools,  in the no child left behind standardization from some of the most brilliant educator who was isolated in a LA LA LAND of theory of  ... well THEORY !   It just does not work in practice!  Nice thought,  will not work!\n\nYou must be from Australia where you are like we were about a hundred years ago!  In so far as vast open lands. We like local control where possible!\n\n\n\nAPS
756064
It could be very good,or very bad.  Given the law of averages, it would probably be very bad.  However, Britain might manage much better than the US has.  For one thing, it doesn't expand across an entire half-continent.  That would make representation easier, and more likely to reflect actual people.  There are three branches of government in the US:  executive, legislative, and judicial.  There is a constant tug of war going on between each branch, with each one convinced that they should be given more power.  Right now, the executive has too much power, and needs to be trimmed (I know a good place to start!)  Generally, the legislature manages to hold most of the power, simply because it is made up of representatives from each state.  The judicial has been made a plaything of the Bush family, but is actually designed to be politically impartial.  I think a strong legislature might turn that around a little.\n\nIt is a bulky way of governing, but its value is in that very bulkiness.  Perhaps all Britain has to do is limit the terms of the prime ministers.  The rest can carry on as usual.
383668
why would anybody want to go to australia? spiders, snakes, absolutely no gun rights, and (no matter how much you hate it) you are still part of england. oh, at least we can claim we are independent from another country.
684118
(Job interviews?  Wow.)\n\nThe power to remove a state can be viewed in two ways: as the power to punish a state for betraying the ideals of our republic, or as the power to reward a state for being capable of existing as an economically viable, independent, democratic nation.  I believe a strong case for both can be made for California.\n\nThe state of California is symbolic of what many people feel are the worst aspects of America.  Hollywood's movies are violent and sexually permissive and have the effect of "dumbing down" the populace; homosexuality runs rampant in many California cities; immigrants of all shapes and shades inhabit the state.  Many Americans abhor all of these aspects of California and, I suspect, more than a few of them would jettison the state if given the opportunity to do so.\n\nGiven the negative opinion of California by much of the rest of the nation, perhaps we should do the state a favor and remove it from the Union.  If California were an independent country it would have one of the ten most productive economies in the world (measured by GDP).  It boasts ample farmland, and I feel its human diversity is a strength, not a weakness.  The U.S. needs California more than California needs the U.S.  My only reservation would be the state of California's government, which has been hijacked by money-to-burn ideologues on both sides of the aisle and which I would not trust to run an independent country.
1105364
i would abolish it.  the government that governs best, governs not at all.
619604
No !\nIt is outdated and a waste of our public money now,\nAll they are now is a figure head of Britain without any powers they are a puppet monarchy.\nWe elect our own government without a say from the monarchy\nBut still our leaders out of respect have to ask the monarchy if it can dissolve Parliament. It is a Farce\nIn today's Britain we have enough people sponging off the state without a family that is so privileged that it doesn't know what it like to live month to month.\nIt is time that all this tradition is done away with once and for all.
808096
I think that Aussie Councils and shires are not working in the best interest of the rate payers it is a fact that people who have got an elected position are prone to want to keep that position and in most cases I am finding that more money and more time is being spent on the big picture of getting back next time have a good look at how many grants are being given out and to which groups mostly they go to self interest groups whose leaders hand out on election days  Good Luck I was a Councilor in the good old days when we got back in on our merits. They can only have the power that State Government gives them.
745049
I think it is. Without a state we would be overthrown by rebels.
790685
yes all countries should be a republic\nwhy any one wants to be ruled by a king or queen is beyond me.\nlook how much it costs to keep them the are the biggest waste of money ever.\nin england you have a fair idea who will sit in the throne for the next 100 years. do you not think you should decide who is the head of your country.
406761
The way it doesnt perform for the people.\n Philosophical contributins have addressed the dilemmas and opportunities facing Canada, Australia and Europe, to mention just a couple of areas where federal arrangements are seen as interesting solutions to accommodating differences among populations divided by ethnic or cultural cleavages yet seeking a common political order.\n Within the realm of what is considered normal in government, It serves itself with disregard to the benefits it should be giving to the public, rather, serving it's own existence.\nHence, its self fulfilling.
1108884
isn't it better to eradicate terrorists instead of the whole state coz there are more peaceful people than terroists in every state.
926209
We'll, I'm Australian. Personally I think the US stands for many great things but over recent times this has really been overshadowed by negatives that many US people do not seem to understand. Many seem to have a US centric world view and don't care what the rest of the world thinks, this is very negative. The US must engage and become more active in positive issues and not just hand out aid money. I think most Aussies still like Americans but try to think more global. I.E sign the Kyoto agreement and be more even handed to those that need assistance.
1050828
The government is based on state law.  So, by that.. NO.
915525
Absouletly. IT should be repealed ASAP. It destorys habeus corpeus and violates the civil rights of the american people. IT also redefines the geneva convention for the united states to interept at their own will. It sets the road for a military dicatorship in the united states, in the form of a facist police state using federal agencies like the department of homeland security as a front.  It clearly violates the united states constitution and puts our country in a hardline stance that violates everything that we stand for. It also gives the ability for them to classify american citizens as enemy combantants, and allows for them to be punished without trial or jury.
1003070
Yes, it should be up to the states definitley but maybe even local governments. Why should someone in DC dictate what I do with my mind? Thomas Jefferson must be rolling in his grave.
337974
Oh, I hope not!  I think we need to be able to "get away" from whatever government dominates, or it will come to dominate every facet of our lives.  Both George Orwell's "1984," (which was written in 1948, as I recall), and "Brave New World," and lots of other science fiction have made the point that a world-wide country is too much power too centralized.  It will not make way for differences that humans need to have to function.  \n\nThe big government concept is uniformity; the politics of scale.  That is a necessary part of doing things on a big scale, and why no more than absolutely necessary should be done by the federal government.  The smaller the unit of government, the bigger the opportunity to respond to real-world circumstances.  A neighborhood can get things done with only occasional assistance from a city government, which seldom needs to draw on the resources of the entire county, state, region.  Response to a major disaster takes a well-coordinated effort across state lines.  Even there, who has done the better job in Katrina response: the Red Cross and the rest of the private foundations, or the federal government?  I rest my case.
417204
Our democracy (as it is in the UK and the US) is seriously flawed.  There is a two party state and a lot of unelected officials wielding power but, ultimately, we can hold governments accountable and throw them out if we don't like them.