• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    On one hand, it might be better for both the states and the world if we went to more of an EU type structure.

    That’s what the US already was once, under the Articles of Confederation. It didn’t really help in the way you’re hoping it would.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know that I’d agree that the EU and the articles of confederation are comparable. There were a few big differences, including states printing their own currency without a common exchange medium (as opposed to the Euro), and that the mechanism for funding the federal government was (IIRC) entirely voluntary. States could just choose to not send money without consequences, and most or all made the obvious choice of not funding the federal government. The articles of confederation also had a few things about it that were more progressive than the constitution; for example, if I’m remembering right, it offered automatic citizenship to all native Americans, which pissed a lot of the farmer-settlers right off.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        It was also 250 years ago, so yeah.

        Still, I think mentioning it is still at least somewhat useful in terms of demonstrating what “an EU type structure” is (a confederation, as opposed to a federation like the United States is now) and pointing out that weakening the central government in exchange for more sovereign individual states doesn’t necessarily mean the public in those various states would be appeased.