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. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.
It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Really? Do I really need to enumerate for you the virtually endless list of hyper-corrupt small governments? Oh. I get it. You're just trolling. Cool. (No one could be that full of BS.)
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities. There are several superfund sites in my state left over by the mining industry when it was policing itsself for years and years. Now who has to clean the mercury out of the aquifer so these ignorant a-holes can drink clean water? It isn't the company that created the mess I can tell you that for sure and it isn't the state government. The Federa
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities.
The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk. All other roads should be purely state funded. That would cut our federal highway budget by a substantial amount. Of course, states would have to raise taxes to pay for the building and maintenance of state highways, so it would end up being a wash to the taxpayer. The difference is that my tax d
My state pays more to the government than it collects as do 90% of the blue states in the union. I also happen to work for the state so I know the limits of what the state is allowed to do. So in your model, a company from Va. comes to my state and mines gold then leaves a huge mess to clean up. The company then leaves a huge toxic mess and goes back to Va. My state goes after said company for the cost of the cleanup. There are 2 scenarios here under your schema:
1. Said company cannot be pursued beca
Just like Delaware and North Dakota ruined any attempts by states to regulate lending. Some small state would take a dump at the dinner table. "No up front cleanup costs here! We are creating jobs for Americans!"
Then their mess would flow down the river to every other state.
That has always been the big issue with allocating power to the states and was the big holdup to the whole "shopping for health insurance across state lines" bullshit. There will always be one state (usually a more rural one) that will sell it's own people down the toxic river just to entice some mega corp or another to come do business in their state thus forcing the lower common denominator for the rest of the country.
How is the "Big Dig" a "very needed purpose" in my life? I've never seen it. I'll never drive through it.
There's a very good chance that someday you or someone you care for will be treated by a doctor who had to commute that route to one of the huge number of medical schools in the Boston area. He'll have retained more of the material due to the extra half hour per day he spent catching up on sleep instead of sitting behind a wheel listening to WAAF. Also, anything you ever purchase that had to travel that route will potentially be cheaper due to lower transportation costs.
The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk.
Seriously? You think that the interstate system is a "perk" rather than an essential resource that the economy would suffer greatly without? You really want to let military thinking and values control them?
I agree with ArcherB; when people complain government is too big, immediately people jump into Washington Monument Syndrome and claim that shrinking government will take away the really valuable things that most people want... but more than that, it conflates different kinds of tax revenues and where and how they are collected and what they are used for.
If you take a look at the huge debate going on in Washington right now, you don't hear people complaining about gasoline taxes - which is what is supposed t
Because different local populations all have their own brand of stupidity. Countless times the Feds have saved states from the consequences of bad policy, just as countless times state governments have stayed bad policies coming from Washington. Having the two systems offers another check and balance. One system harnesses the best the country has to offer to find the best overall policies. The other harnesses the region-specific knowledge to adapt those policies locally.
Why don't you investigate into why there are these two systems you speak of. I'm willing to be once you find that answer, you will not only stop confusing federalism (federalist) but maybe support their ideas in the process.
And BTW, in case you are wandering, it's the federalist who what a smaller federal government, not anti-federalist which I think you just invented out of ignorance.
I see your google fingers aren't broken, it's just your comprehension skills that are. I like the way you attempt to hide that by inserting what you think is a slam on my intelligence by associating my knowledge with that of the infamously evil Glenn Beck. Oh well, I guess this is why it's fun to watch the special Olympics.
Federalist wanted a stronger government then the articles of confederation allowed, but they were very much a practice of federalism which is focused more on the constitutional contract
To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.
...or that's what they like to tell themselves, and how they want to be portrayed. In fact, however, the modern tea party effectively wants a return back beyond even the articles of confederation. I chose that term specifically because it IS accurate. They are indeed that regressive.
Number 1, just moving taxes to the state level (or even the county/city level) is not going to fix the budget problem. It just means someone else is responsible for it. Number 2, a significant number of states manage to have a balanced budget only because of help from the federal government for infrastructure, health care, education and security. Increasing their budgets while reducing their revenue is going to make the problem worse. Number 3, there is the impl
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Well put! The programs that are Constitutional should not be slashed. The programs that are not Constitutional need to be eliminated.
Government has a purpose. Our government's purpose is spelled out plainly in the Constitution. Anything beyond that violates the Constitution per the 10th Amendment. However, I do believe that the government should not be limited to what's currently in the Constitution, but if it needs to do more, there is an amendment process that will allow for whatever expanded powers
there is an amendment process that will allow for whatever expanded powers the federal government needs
Passing amendments isn't fashionable, because doing it only gives legitimacy to the idea that government is limited by a constitution. Who wants that?
The constitution has no more ability to bestow or limit power than the people want it to. If the constitution says the federal government isn't allowed to do X, but the people vote for federal representatives who then do X, then the federal government is go
The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).
As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).
Well, that is what happens when you kill the government, isn't it? Reverting to tribalism or feudalism. The secret hope of right-leaning anarchists is simply that they would come out on top and fill the local warlord position. The secret hope of left-leaning anarchists, on the other hand, is so utopic, that you gotta view Marx as a stone-cold realist in comparison.
Left leaning anarchists (e.g. Bakunin) predicted the tyranny that would follow if a Marxist revolution ever occurred. I'd say that makes them at least a bit more realistic than Marx was.
The secret hope of left leaning anarchists is little more than seeing todays successful democratic socialist governments taken to their logical conclusion. More direct democracy and more direct ownership of the means of production.
Well, the thing with taking democratic socialism to its conclusion is along the lines of Schumpeter then, I guess. That's one of the brighter projections of the future, indeed. I have to admit that I am not that versed in the classic theory of anarchism, I was working from my experience with current examples that I had met. I don't know much about Bakunin, in particular I have no idea how he would ensure that his egalitarian anarcho-socialist utopia would stay stable. How do you prevent concentration of pow
has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved.
The way I read Somalia's history, they have never moved out of tribal law. When the supposed Somali government's power was at it's peak, there were huge areas of Somalia that they didn't control. No governmental body has ever really ruled in that land. At best, they ruled Mogadishu and surrounding areas, and made a show of force in outlying areas. At worst, the capital experiences running gun battles round the clock.
England left Somalia because they were ungovernable nomads. Nothing has ever changed, t
The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).
As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).
Slavery is banned by the Constitution so the feds could get involved.
Rightists and leftists are indistinguishable to me. Both sides of the aisle have bought into globalism, and both sides serve Corporate America, rather than the constituents who elect them. So - don't point fingers at the righties. The lefties are just as bad.
Why is it that all of a sudden reducing government (which has only grown over the years) is tantamount to becoming anarchy? Some nutjobs do believe in almost no government, most of us believe in a weaker federal government because what people in California want doesn't matter to people in Ohio, and what people in Ohio want doesn't matter to people in Florida. Example: Federal law has it that we can't use marijuana for medicinal purposes. California is in violation of that law, but most Californians don't care, and a lot of people outside of California would like to move there specifically for that. Wouldn't it make sense that people outside of California not have a say in what happens in California? This kind of bullshit happens all the time. It's about granularity. Small democracies work way, way better than big ones. It makes no sense to have the biggest, most diverse, least related group of voters doing the most powerful governing.
The federal government, as the least representative government of any specific person does a whole hell of a lot it was never intended to do. It's not a matter if government should do it, it's a matter of if a government so far removed should do it. If every single person in Montana wanted to opt out of Social Security in favor of their own locally run version, where do the assholes in the rest of the states get off telling them how to run their lives? If you want to be a dictator to the minority, instead of respect differences of opinion, maybe you should leave. Your ideas of how the government should be run are further out of touch with our laws than small government fans. You obviously don't have the support to change the laws or the constitution would have been ammended to make a lot of these illegal, overreaching programs legal, so you get out. There is nothing stopping any state from implementing any of the federal programs for themselves, they just want to impose it on everybody else whether they agree to it or not so they can get the benefit of other state's resources. That is the evil of strong central government, that is the purpose of the electoral college, and that is why changes to the constitution require more than a simple majority. But you can get around all of that by simply ignoring the constitution, and that's what we as a country have done. Somehow the people that don't support it want to send us back to a third world country? No, not at all. But I guess it's easier for you to cover your ears and scream than to challenge your own beliefs.
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
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
The 10th has been effectively trumped by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Which is probably the single largest reorienting of power in the country's history. If anyone realized what was happening at the time, it should have started a revolution.
I wonder if that was the intent of using the ICC, or if that's just how it has turned out; but the federal consolidation of power is absolutely been garnered by the expansion of that power beyond it's clear intent.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.
And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security. Is
And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security
That's only true of defense, which unsurprisingly the founding fathers thought of when granting the federal government the power to maintain a standing army. Both healthcare and social security could easily be implemented at lower levels of government. In fact, many other countries have already done this (one example is Canada, where each province has its own hea
But what you ask is exactly one critical role of the federal government: regulating interstate commerce. I would imagine in a case where more and more services are being pushed down to the state level, legal clauses would be built in to pr
The problem is too many small government authorities and lack of control/oversight by a large central government.
If you have lots of small local government then they usually don't have enough power to really get things done. If central government is too small people are forced to get ripped off by private companies supplying services that otherwise the government would have. Most people get government services at below market cost thanks to subsidy via higher taxation for the rich.
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:Easy enough (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. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.
It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."
Re:Easy enough (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. People will bitch and moan about the government all day but then they get to drive to work on paved roads with traffic moderation and other amenities.
The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk. All other roads should be purely state funded. That would cut our federal highway budget by a substantial amount. Of course, states would have to raise taxes to pay for the building and maintenance of state highways, so it would end up being a wash to the taxpayer. The difference is that my tax d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read what the guy said, he suggested collecting the cleanup costs up front, and then refunding the difference to the company.
Of course, that would require some intelligence on the part of the state governments, which is unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Then their mess would flow down the river to every other state.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How is the "Big Dig" a "very needed purpose" in my life? I've never seen it. I'll never drive through it.
There's a very good chance that someday you or someone you care for will be treated by a doctor who had to commute that route to one of the huge number of medical schools in the Boston area. He'll have retained more of the material due to the extra half hour per day he spent catching up on sleep instead of sitting behind a wheel listening to WAAF. Also, anything you ever purchase that had to travel that route will potentially be cheaper due to lower transportation costs.
That, and thousands of other effici
Re: (Score:2)
The Interstate Highway System was created to move military equipment around. It serves a military function and should be funded through the military. The fact that civilians may use it daily is an added perk.
Seriously? You think that the interstate system is a "perk" rather than an essential resource that the economy would suffer greatly without? You really want to let military thinking and values control them?
The rest was tl;dr after that statement.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with ArcherB; when people complain government is too big, immediately people jump into Washington Monument Syndrome and claim that shrinking government will take away the really valuable things that most people want... but more than that, it conflates different kinds of tax revenues and where and how they are collected and what they are used for.
If you take a look at the huge debate going on in Washington right now, you don't hear people complaining about gasoline taxes - which is what is supposed t
Re: (Score:2)
Because different local populations all have their own brand of stupidity. Countless times the Feds have saved states from the consequences of bad policy, just as countless times state governments have stayed bad policies coming from Washington. Having the two systems offers another check and balance. One system harnesses the best the country has to offer to find the best overall policies. The other harnesses the region-specific knowledge to adapt those policies locally.
Obviously, the system is broken,
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you investigate into why there are these two systems you speak of. I'm willing to be once you find that answer, you will not only stop confusing federalism (federalist) but maybe support their ideas in the process.
And BTW, in case you are wandering, it's the federalist who what a smaller federal government, not anti-federalist which I think you just invented out of ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, you get your history from the Glen Beck show...
The Federalists were dominated by businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government. The party was closely linked to the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt and also assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and in [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I see your google fingers aren't broken, it's just your comprehension skills that are. I like the way you attempt to hide that by inserting what you think is a slam on my intelligence by associating my knowledge with that of the infamously evil Glenn Beck. Oh well, I guess this is why it's fun to watch the special Olympics.
Federalist wanted a stronger government then the articles of confederation allowed, but they were very much a practice of federalism which is focused more on the constitutional contract
Re: (Score:2)
To use it in the sense you did pretends that they are in practice today and we are still debating a constitution over the articles of confederacy. In fact, the federalism of today is actually more aligned with a strict adherence to the the US constitution which would require a smaller government and anything anti to that would be indicative of wanting a larger government.
...or that's what they like to tell themselves, and how they want to be portrayed. In fact, however, the modern tea party effectively wants a return back beyond even the articles of confederation. I chose that term specifically because it IS accurate. They are indeed that regressive.
Re: (Score:3)
What he's saying is most taxes should be local.
But should it, really? And how local is local?
Number 1, just moving taxes to the state level (or even the county/city level) is not going to fix the budget problem. It just means someone else is responsible for it. Number 2, a significant number of states manage to have a balanced budget only because of help from the federal government for infrastructure, health care, education and security. Increasing their budgets while reducing their revenue is going to make the problem worse. Number 3, there is the impl
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that it is the quantity of government, but rather its specific content. The government is doing things that it should not, and not doing things that it should. Reducing the size of government might reduce the number of things it is doing that it should not, but I assure you the other side of this imbalance will only get worse, because the government will likely also stop doing several things that it should be doing.
Well put! The programs that are Constitutional should not be slashed. The programs that are not Constitutional need to be eliminated.
Government has a purpose. Our government's purpose is spelled out plainly in the Constitution. Anything beyond that violates the Constitution per the 10th Amendment. However, I do believe that the government should not be limited to what's currently in the Constitution, but if it needs to do more, there is an amendment process that will allow for whatever expanded powers
Re: (Score:2)
Passing amendments isn't fashionable, because doing it only gives legitimacy to the idea that government is limited by a constitution. Who wants that?
The constitution has no more ability to bestow or limit power than the people want it to. If the constitution says the federal government isn't allowed to do X, but the people vote for federal representatives who then do X, then the federal government is go
Re:Easy enough (Score:4, Interesting)
The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).
As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Left leaning anarchists (e.g. Bakunin) predicted the tyranny that would follow if a Marxist revolution ever occurred. I'd say that makes them at least a bit more realistic than Marx was.
The secret hope of left leaning anarchists is little more than seeing todays successful democratic socialist governments taken to their logical conclusion. More direct democracy and more direct ownership of the means of production.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved.
The way I read Somalia's history, they have never moved out of tribal law. When the supposed Somali government's power was at it's peak, there were huge areas of Somalia that they didn't control. No governmental body has ever really ruled in that land. At best, they ruled Mogadishu and surrounding areas, and made a show of force in outlying areas. At worst, the capital experiences running gun battles round the clock.
England left Somalia because they were ungovernable nomads. Nothing has ever changed, t
Re: (Score:2)
The grandparent was referring to Somalia being in what we in the US consider a state of anarchy, but in fact most of the country has fallen under traditional tribal leadership and obeys tribal law for their various tribes and the central government has dissolved. No tribal leader has the influence or power to take control of the central government, so there is no central government, which has led to some areas being in a state of lawlessness. In some ways that is not necessarily a bad thing, because depending on who is in power, it could be a very oppressive dictatorship (think Taliban).
As for the 10th amendment, it is and pretty much always has been filigree with little substance - States are considered subordinate to federal law in all cases, which is understandable in some ways - for example, the South could potentially still have slavery if it weren't for the government stepping in. Before you argue that slaves are human and should therefore have rights under the constitution, remember that up until the end of the civil war slaves were considered more like an animal than a human (by the South).
Slavery is banned by the Constitution so the feds could get involved.
Re: (Score:1)
48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state
There are 100 US Senators, not 50. Each state gets 2.
Re: (Score:1)
technically 96/100 is the same as 48/50 as 24/25.
fractions are fun.
Re: (Score:3)
technically 96/100 is the same as 48/50 as 24/25.
fractions are fun.
Um, actually it's 98/100, so the fraction you're looking for is 49/50.
Re: (Score:2)
good catch.. me not thinking - no coffee today.
Re: (Score:1)
technically 96/100 is the same as 48/50 as 24/25.
fractions are fun.
However, 96/100 != 98/100.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state
There are 100 US Senators, not 50. Each state gets 2.
Correct, I meant 49/50. I guess I'll have to forgive that 57 states comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Rightists and leftists are indistinguishable to me. Both sides of the aisle have bought into globalism, and both sides serve Corporate America, rather than the constituents who elect them. So - don't point fingers at the righties. The lefties are just as bad.
Re:Way to completely miss the point (Score:4, Interesting)
The federal government, as the least representative government of any specific person does a whole hell of a lot it was never intended to do. It's not a matter if government should do it, it's a matter of if a government so far removed should do it. If every single person in Montana wanted to opt out of Social Security in favor of their own locally run version, where do the assholes in the rest of the states get off telling them how to run their lives? If you want to be a dictator to the minority, instead of respect differences of opinion, maybe you should leave. Your ideas of how the government should be run are further out of touch with our laws than small government fans. You obviously don't have the support to change the laws or the constitution would have been ammended to make a lot of these illegal, overreaching programs legal, so you get out. There is nothing stopping any state from implementing any of the federal programs for themselves, they just want to impose it on everybody else whether they agree to it or not so they can get the benefit of other state's resources. That is the evil of strong central government, that is the purpose of the electoral college, and that is why changes to the constitution require more than a simple majority. But you can get around all of that by simply ignoring the constitution, and that's what we as a country have done. Somehow the people that don't support it want to send us back to a third world country? No, not at all. But I guess it's easier for you to cover your ears and scream than to challenge your own beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Belgium compared to Germany?
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
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
Re: (Score:2)
The 10th has been effectively trumped by the Interstate Commerce Clause. Which is probably the single largest reorienting of power in the country's history. If anyone realized what was happening at the time, it should have started a revolution.
I wonder if that was the intent of using the ICC, or if that's just how it has turned out; but the federal consolidation of power is absolutely been garnered by the expansion of that power beyond it's clear intent.
Re: (Score:2)
And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security. Is
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true of defense, which unsurprisingly the founding fathers thought of when granting the federal government the power to maintain a standing army. Both healthcare and social security could easily be implemented at lower levels of government. In fact, many other countries have already done this (one example is Canada, where each province has its own hea
Re: (Score:2)
And who would enforce that law, if the state said "go take a jump, we're keeping it"?
Re: (Score:2)
lol, they can do that even if you're living in the state, and several are threatening to do just that: http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/27/state-pensions-well-cut-benefits/ [cincinnati.com]
But what you ask is exactly one critical role of the federal government: regulating interstate commerce. I would imagine in a case where more and more services are being pushed down to the state level, legal clauses would be built in to pr
Re: (Score:2)
Well they were all about the decimal system really...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is too many small government authorities and lack of control/oversight by a large central government.
If you have lots of small local government then they usually don't have enough power to really get things done. If central government is too small people are forced to get ripped off by private companies supplying services that otherwise the government would have. Most people get government services at below market cost thanks to subsidy via higher taxation for the rich.
The government is the serv