If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
All power to the Counties! All power to the Cities! All power to the neighborhoods!
What is the deal with States, that they're so awesome? Maybe it's because I live in Oklahoma at the moment, but I'm just not seeing it. When we talk about mobility, you have to remember that the reason it's relatively (not absolutely, by a long shot) easy to pick up and move between states is that there's a certain amount of standardization provided by the federal government. Even something as simple as "states must recognize marriages from other states" makes a huge difference in where people could/would move for a job, for economic reasons. And it just goes up from there.
Also, do you really think the people of Missouri have sufficiently different needs and wants from the people of Oklahoma, that they need different laws? Maybe Utah does, and Texas just needs it for its ego, but really? We're all humans [for now], we're all potential works and employers. You might argue that when economic trouble hits, different regions need different economic policies applied because of local industry variations, but that's not prevented by the federal government; it already doles out money to various industries selectively, affecting regions differently. We decry the International Criminal Court as a violation of our sovereignty, we despise super-national unions like the EU, but really we're just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This far, and no further.
Are some states "red" and others "blue"? Maybe, but does that mean that we need states that are right next to each other, with either a 49/51 or 51/49 ratio, to be run entirely differently? Do you think that the resulting "sloshing", as people move out of their current states to escape overly-partisan policies, is good for us in the long term? Do you think polarizing our populations even more will solve our problems?
I realize this is about ideology, whether you believe that we are generally smarter or dumber as a group than as an individual. And I think that it's both, depending on the issue. Maybe we're smarter individually when running a small business, but we're dumber when it comes to planning health insurance, the military, etc. All of that is debatable, and actively debated, and that's healthy. I guess we could just split the union. Two countries. One centralized, one completely decentralized. Tear families apart. Break our economy. Increase tensions. Lose power in the world. And then split again, when each side disagrees on how much centralization is good.
States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?
States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?
Well, whatever you want. Your state could legalize marijuana. Your state could legalize gay marriage. Your state could ban abortion. Really, it's whatever your state wanted to do.
However, you are correct that their are limits. Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states. Coining money, for example is a federal job. States may not coin their own money. Also, states may not violate Constitutional rights. For example, an Oklahoma policeman
But that still doesn't answer why the State is the ideal layer for this to happen. It's arbitrary. Sure, we can quote the Constitution, or bring up the Founding Fathers, to justify doing things "by the book", but why? Just because that's the way some dead guys designed the system? Including dead guys who felt they had very little right to tell the next generation how to run the show? So then it just becomes an argument about either doing things by the book, or rewriting the book. Which is fine and dandy, bu
Why can't I make prostitution illegal on my plot of land? Ultimately, shouldn't I be able to decide? And I'm sure anti-abortionists would feel that banning it in some states, and not in others, is akin to having slavery in the state next door: morally unjustifiable. We clearly recognize that there are basic human rights -- and some less obvious -- that deserve upholding both here and abroad.
Actually, you may make prostitution legal if you want... in Nevada. Laws against prostitution are state laws. If you want to make it "illegal" on your land, say, in a state where it is legal, than you may. It's your land. If you don't want someone paying for sex on your land, then kindly ask them to leave. If you want to be a pimp, and do it legally, you may petition your local state legislature to make prostitution legal or move to a state where it already is (Nevada is the only one).
I believe the standard response, after 9/11, was "if you don't like it, you can move to France." That is, even if laws are federal, people will just be told to switch countries instead of states. It's not a solution, it's just a retort. Your argument seems like it would recommend open borders, freedom of immigration and emigration. (Emigration is rather easy, but if nobody will accept you, it's pointless.) If the people of Mexico don't like it down there, why shouldn't they move here? Oh, wait, because we d
>>Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states. >>Utah may not decide that Mormon is the state religion.
This would be news to the founding fathers. 9 out of the 13 colonies had established religions. (http://www.kknfa.org/Religion_13Colonies.htm)
The first amendment applied to the Federal government only, not the states, and the 10th Amendment didn't overwrite this.
It wasn't until the mid-20th Century that the 14th amendment, in Everson
"States that are right next to each other... run entirely differently" is in fact our Constitutional system.
States are supposed to have this capability as part of the grand American Experiment. To some extent, they still do. Bicameral legislature may be the norm but there is one US state, two territories, and DC which have unicameral legislatures http://v.gd/0eGJ5A [v.gd]. Massachusetts passed an individual health insurance mandate, much to Romney's now-regret, but other states did not. Gun control laws differ, in
Well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Too bad government isn't voluntary, or t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
States' rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
All power to the Counties! All power to the Cities! All power to the neighborhoods!
What is the deal with States, that they're so awesome? Maybe it's because I live in Oklahoma at the moment, but I'm just not seeing it. When we talk about mobility, you have to remember that the reason it's relatively (not absolutely, by a long shot) easy to pick up and move between states is that there's a certain amount of standardization provided by the federal government. Even something as simple as "states must recognize marriages from other states" makes a huge difference in where people could/would move for a job, for economic reasons. And it just goes up from there.
Also, do you really think the people of Missouri have sufficiently different needs and wants from the people of Oklahoma, that they need different laws? Maybe Utah does, and Texas just needs it for its ego, but really? We're all humans [for now], we're all potential works and employers. You might argue that when economic trouble hits, different regions need different economic policies applied because of local industry variations, but that's not prevented by the federal government; it already doles out money to various industries selectively, affecting regions differently. We decry the International Criminal Court as a violation of our sovereignty, we despise super-national unions like the EU, but really we're just drawing arbitrary lines in the sand. This far, and no further.
Are some states "red" and others "blue"? Maybe, but does that mean that we need states that are right next to each other, with either a 49/51 or 51/49 ratio, to be run entirely differently? Do you think that the resulting "sloshing", as people move out of their current states to escape overly-partisan policies, is good for us in the long term? Do you think polarizing our populations even more will solve our problems?
I realize this is about ideology, whether you believe that we are generally smarter or dumber as a group than as an individual. And I think that it's both, depending on the issue. Maybe we're smarter individually when running a small business, but we're dumber when it comes to planning health insurance, the military, etc. All of that is debatable, and actively debated, and that's healthy. I guess we could just split the union. Two countries. One centralized, one completely decentralized. Tear families apart. Break our economy. Increase tensions. Lose power in the world. And then split again, when each side disagrees on how much centralization is good.
States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?
Re: (Score:3)
States' rights sound awesome, but what would you *do* with that power and granularity, that can't or shouldn't be done at a higher or lower level?
Well, whatever you want. Your state could legalize marijuana. Your state could legalize gay marriage. Your state could ban abortion. Really, it's whatever your state wanted to do.
However, you are correct that their are limits. Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states. Coining money, for example is a federal job. States may not coin their own money. Also, states may not violate Constitutional rights. For example, an Oklahoma policeman
Re: (Score:2)
But that still doesn't answer why the State is the ideal layer for this to happen. It's arbitrary. Sure, we can quote the Constitution, or bring up the Founding Fathers, to justify doing things "by the book", but why? Just because that's the way some dead guys designed the system? Including dead guys who felt they had very little right to tell the next generation how to run the show? So then it just becomes an argument about either doing things by the book, or rewriting the book. Which is fine and dandy, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't I make prostitution illegal on my plot of land? Ultimately, shouldn't I be able to decide? And I'm sure anti-abortionists would feel that banning it in some states, and not in others, is akin to having slavery in the state next door: morally unjustifiable. We clearly recognize that there are basic human rights -- and some less obvious -- that deserve upholding both here and abroad.
Actually, you may make prostitution legal if you want... in Nevada. Laws against prostitution are state laws. If you want to make it "illegal" on your land, say, in a state where it is legal, than you may. It's your land. If you don't want someone paying for sex on your land, then kindly ask them to leave. If you want to be a pimp, and do it legally, you may petition your local state legislature to make prostitution legal or move to a state where it already is (Nevada is the only one).
You mentioned sla
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the standard response, after 9/11, was "if you don't like it, you can move to France." That is, even if laws are federal, people will just be told to switch countries instead of states. It's not a solution, it's just a retort. Your argument seems like it would recommend open borders, freedom of immigration and emigration. (Emigration is rather easy, but if nobody will accept you, it's pointless.) If the people of Mexico don't like it down there, why shouldn't they move here? Oh, wait, because we d
Re:fartknockers' rights? (Score:2)
Huh huh. You said KY [k-y.com] Heh heh.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Part of the 10th Amendment states that duties of the federal government are the fed's job, not the states.
>>Utah may not decide that Mormon is the state religion.
This would be news to the founding fathers. 9 out of the 13 colonies had established religions. (http://www.kknfa.org/Religion_13Colonies.htm)
The first amendment applied to the Federal government only, not the states, and the 10th Amendment didn't overwrite this.
It wasn't until the mid-20th Century that the 14th amendment, in Everson
Re: (Score:2)
"States that are right next to each other... run entirely differently" is in fact our Constitutional system.
States are supposed to have this capability as part of the grand American Experiment. To some extent, they still do. Bicameral legislature may be the norm but there is one US state, two territories, and DC which have unicameral legislatures http://v.gd/0eGJ5A [v.gd]. Massachusetts passed an individual health insurance mandate, much to Romney's now-regret, but other states did not. Gun control laws differ, in