you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I figure that states would regulate their region - for example, if a president wants troops from their region, the individual states have to agree to supply the troops. This puts an onus on a regional president to negotiate terms with states and other regions if they want to do stuff. Mind, I think there would have to be an exception for natural disasters like hurricanes and forest fires, with a footnote that deployed troops have to be unarmed.

We want a certain degree of gridlock, where no one has too much authority, but not so much rigidity that nothing can be done. Kinda like how traffic lights and road layouts dictate how a city operates. Political divisions and systems are architecture designed to address chaos.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    That would never work. So each state has their own army? What are the training standards? What about not giving any troops but then wanting help.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Trade. A state that is troop poor or reluctant to let them be borrowed, can instead offer money or some other assistance to get help from another state. The training standards would presumably be per state...but the regional government can hold a program. For example, "we train 6,000 of Colorado's state guard for 7 months, we get to rent them for X dollars, and for up to Y months at a time."

    The important thing is to give states enough agency to say no, or to have fair terms with their regional president.

  • source
  • parent