Utopian Societies - states rights vs the federal government

Utopian Societies – states rights vs the federal government

Utopian societies strive to provide a fair and balanced community where everyone can live in harmony with each other. All societies must be governed in some fashion to uphold laws and security, ensure the equitable distribution of resources and provide for basic infrastructure, among other things. A key ideological debate in America is on what level the basic government functions should operate. Some believe a strong centralized federal government can best control the country as a whole, while others advocate more power at the local and state levels to better tailor the government to the specific regions and populations within the country. In the context of utopian societies, state level and lower governments are not desirable as they can lead to vast differences and inequalities across the nation as a whole. The benefits of more localized government are largely a thing of the past, as modern technology has nullified physical proximity as the binding factor in people’s lives.

Let’s define “states rights” as the idea that each state within the U.S. should be allowed to set the rules and limits for its individual population. When the laws of the federal government supersede the individual states, they violate state’s rights. Let’s also assume that the laws of the federal government are intended to act on the population as a whole without regard to specific region or physical location. On the one extreme, if we had only state governments and no federal government at all, the U.S. would essentially be a collection of 50 different countries, not unlike the European Union. On the other extreme, if we abolished “states” altogether and only had a federal government, the U.S. would operate essentially as a single state does today, with one set of rules for every location within the country. To avoid conflict, inequalities, and competition within utopian societies, it is desirable to have one set of rules for everybody.

America today has a mixed system where the federal government dictates certain minimum standards for the population as a whole while each state is allowed to tailor and augment things for their specific wants and needs. The result is a varying set of rules and standards across the country. Over time, a direct consequence of those differing rules is a differing quality of life across the country. The American Human Development Project has charted a large set of data on a state by state level for easy comparison across the country. The results show vast differences in education, health, and income levels from state to state. The northeast and west coast states generally have a higher HDI, better education, and higher income levels than the southeast states. For example, the life expectancy of a person living in Mississippi is 74, while the life expectancy of a person living in Connecticut is 80. These differences are very significant when compared to the rest of the world. A life expectancy of 80 puts Connecticut in the top 15 nations globally while a life expectancy of 74 places Mississippi tied for 71^st globally, right behind Libya and Serbia. Using data from the American Human Development Project, the Map Scroll computed that the northeast U.S. places 5^th in the world in HDI, while portions of the southeast place 75^th. The general population, myself included, doesn’t perceive these differences when we travel from state to state. This is because a vast majority of our travels are to big cities and/or tourist destinations, neither of which accurately represent the living conditions in the rest of the state. Forming utopian societies depends on global peace and equality, but before we can begin to address global issues, we need the population within the country to be on the same playing field as well.

Human Development Index (HDI) by State - from AHDP

The disparity from state to state is evidence of why a strong federal government is necessary. Federal laws, regulations, services, and taxes ensure that everyone, everywhere gets the same treatment. This eliminates state to state differences in health, education, etc. The drawback is that communities lose the ability to govern themselves locally, which translates into a loss of freedom in the minds of many. But the definition of “local” is changing rapidly. Physical proximity used to the uniting factor of communities. Increasingly though, technology is enabling the interaction of people in vastly different physical locations in ways that exceed even their interactions with neighbors. What does it matter if I live in Georgia and you live in Montana? Our culture, media, economy, jobs, an even basic interactions transcend our physical locations. For this reason, the advantage of state level governments is rapidly deteriorating, while the disparity in living from state to state is as bad as ever. The logical conclusion then is that a strong federal government is a better choice in today’s society, and vitally important to the development of future utopian societies.

References:

http://mapscroll.blogspot.com/2009/05/human-development-index-by-state.html

http://www.measureofamerica.org/maps/

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

The Raba Review

Utopian Societies – states rights vs the federal government

Related Posts