Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikov]

See, I don't think the federal government should decide who can marry who in the first place.

If not the government, then who? Or do you mean to say that state governments should decide?

Yep.

[Aqizzar]

Why exactly do you have so much faith in a "state" government instead of a "federal" government?  One is just a level of another; if America were a unitary country, they'd be the same thing.  Do you trust your county government more than the state government?

[Nikov]

If ten people elect one leader, and a billion people elect one leader, which group would be easier for one voter to be heard in? Which group could reverse a decision more easily? Which leader would have a better idea what every one of the governed wanted? Which leader could see directly how his choice impacted the group?

So yes, I prefer to be governed most by my neighbors and least by total strangers.

[Aqizzar]

Difference of theory then.  I don't believe "neighbor"-ness has anything to do with governance, because I highly doubt anyone knows more than a fraction of the people even within their own neighborhood, let along any meaningful jurisdiction.

I honestly do trust the federal government more than the state or county or local governments, precisely because it's bigger and unwieldy.  I know for a fact that my city and county governments do things that are blatantly illegal, let alone the rampant corruption at the state government level, because nobody pays attention to them.  The federal government dominates all reportage and public attention, so all of its actions are under much great scrutiny.  Obviously nothing is perfect, all things being a continuum and not absolutes, but it's pretty much a demonstrable fact that the federal government is less corrupt now than it was, say a hundred years ago, because of the greater information flow and public access.

But in more theoretical terms, I trust the policies made by a larger representative-constituency more than a smaller one: the smaller the electorate, the more homogeneous it becomes.  And the more homogeneous it is, the more likely and acceptable it is for the government to make policies that punish people who don't fit the majority model.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If ten people elect one leader, and a billion people elect one leader, which group would be easier for one voter to be heard in? Which group could reverse a decision more easily? Which leader would have a better idea what every one of the governed wanted? Which leader could see directly how his choice impacted the group?

So yes, I prefer to be governed most by my neighbors and least by total strangers.

That has the risk of shearing the Union apart. If the states don't have to be under the federal government law-wise, then the states will have vastly varied laws. Eventually, they won't have any common law anymore. Seeing as it was already brought up, I'll use gay marriage as an example. You might have one state where gay marriage is legal, another where it isn't, and yet another where even being gay is a crime/gets you forcefully "rehabilitated". It would be insanity. People would stay in their home states 24/7 out of fear of their neighbors. The states might even declare war on one another over conflicting ideology and law. I know I wouldn't stay in North Carolina (or the United States at all, really) for a second if the federal government was no more than a night watchmen. This state would most likely go theocracy on me in a couple of months, or somthing else equally insane. We must preserve the Union to preserve order in our nation's status in the world, and putting it in as much danger as your plan would suggest just isn't worth it.

[Zrk2]

See, I don't think the federal government should decide who can marry who in the first place.

If not the government, then who? Or do you mean to say that state governments should decide?

No one, that's the point! It is not up to the government, or anybody, to decide what one can or cannot do. So long as you do not violate the rights of others you should be free to do whatever the hell you want.

If ten people elect one leader, and a billion people elect one leader, which group would be easier for one voter to be heard in? Which group could reverse a decision more easily? Which leader would have a better idea what every one of the governed wanted? Which leader could see directly how his choice impacted the group?

So yes, I prefer to be governed most by my neighbors and least by total strangers.

That has the risk of shearing the Union apart. If the states don't have to be under the federal government law-wise, then the states will have vastly varied laws. Eventually, they won't have any common law anymore. Seeing as it was already brought up, I'll use gay marriage as an example. You might have one state where gay marriage is legal, another where it isn't, and yet another where even being gay is a crime/gets you forcefully "rehabilitated". It would be insanity. People would stay in their home states 24/7 out of fear of their neighbors. The states might even declare war on one another over conflicting ideology and law. I know I wouldn't stay in North Carolina (or the United States at all, really) for a second if the federal government was no more than a night watchmen. This state would most likely go theocracy on me in a couple of months, or somthing else equally insane. We must preserve the Union to preserve order in our nation's status in the world, and putting it in as much danger as your plan would suggest just isn't worth it.

The situation you describe has already happened; a little thing called 'the Civil War.' I (live in Canada) prefer greater centralization of all power into fewer level of government (albeit with your checks and balances) because it is easier to keep an eye on fewer organizations than on more.

Also; The means justifies the end. Give people their rights and then stay the hell out of the way.

As well, I am not going to bring Ayn Rand into this, that killed the lest two political discussion threads I was in. (And Aqizzar raeg'd out)

[Nikov]

Would you rather be ruled by yourself or by a majority vote of Earth's populace? I would rather be ruled entirely by myself. Since that isn't possible, I want to step away as slowly as I can from that position and no further than absolutely nessicary.

Metal, I never said state laws wouldn't be subordinate to federal laws, and since most of what you said pivots on that assumption, I'll just let that stuff slide as being bad things that would happen without a Federal government with a constitution and inalienable rights and all that. Beside the point though it is, since I am not advocating a lack of a constitution or the rights enumerated within.

[SalmonGod]

When did the world start taking your personal preferences into account? People are lazy to the point where they accept a mind-numbing job or a job that'll kill them because it's easier to stay with said job then to find something better. Because the latter would mean they'd have to put an effort into something instead of following the daily routine. You gave the perfect example. You'd prefer to do something useful, but instead you're doing useless paperwork and don't care about getting a better job because you've got a degree and so you're supposed to sit at a desk doing nothing.

Damn you've just got everyone figured out, don't you.  I suppose the answer is Virex for dictator.  He has all the answers.

FYI, I left my old job because it was part time and not enough to support my family.  I haven't got a new job because I've been finishing school, and since finishing I've been supporting my wife through her education, raising two kids, and working.  The career I'm working towards is highly competitive and time consuming.  I just don't have that much time or energy to devote to it right now.  I can't just break routine as I please, because I have serious obligations to people besides myself. 

I've seen what happens to lazy people who face the same kinds of situations I have.  They drop out of school, live with their parents who half raise their kids for them, and work at Wal-Mart.  But I wouldn't even call them close to a majority of people.

Note that I mentioned the career I want is highly competitive?  Because people aren't all as lazy as you say they are.  There's an over-abundance of educated and motivated people out there, such that many aren't able to get the work that they want.

I think the biggest problem we face is people like you who insist that moving forward is impossible because people are incapable.  Self-defeating perceptions and attitudes from people who recklessly belittle the potential of billions of people they don't know.  Every positive action must overcome the naysayers who stand in the way just because they think they have some obligation to be an obstacle to anything that itches their cynicism.

[Virex]

I'd say the problem is more with people thinking "I want a highly competitive and fun job, but I haven't got the time to work on it right now." Because if you don't take matters into your own hands now, when will you be capable of working towards that career? Your wife and kids won't suddenly stop needing care and your finances won't suddenly fix themselves as well. You could take the gamble that next year the economy will improve, you'll get more time or you win the lottery, but if you want to be sure you get the job you want you've got to invest your free time into it.


Plus there may be too few fun jobs for everyone to do, but that doesn't really matter for you. All you need to do is make sure you're the one to get a job as soon as it comes up by being better then the rest and not settling for being mediocre like everyone else. The whole world's made of mediocre people and that's why there are so few good jobs (and incidentally that's also why the world is in such a mediocre shape)

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail, Constitutionalist, really. Although state or local government doesn't have to be stronger, but does need to be given freedom to be what its residents want. Particularly if they want nothing beyond state troopers and highways.

As people have pointed out, there are a lot of things that just could never work well on a state level.  I mean, take state healthcare.  Better if everyone's doing it, but it's no good if only one state's doing it (sick people cluster in your state, wrecking any savings you might've made).

Metal, I never said state laws wouldn't be subordinate to federal laws, and since most of what you said pivots on that assumption, I'll just let that stuff slide as being bad things that would happen without a Federal government with a constitution and inalienable rights and all that. Beside the point though it is, since I am not advocating a lack of a constitution or the rights enumerated within.

So, how would the federal government enforce these rights?  Considering they have basically zero power in a night watchman state?

[SalmonGod]

I'd say the problem is more with people thinking "I want a highly competitive and fun job, but I haven't got the time to work on it right now." Because if you don't take matters into your own hands now, when will you be capable of working towards that career? Your wife and kids won't suddenly stop needing care and your finances won't suddenly fix themselves as well. You could take the gamble that next year the economy will improve, you'll get more time or you win the lottery, but if you want to be sure you get the job you want you've got to invest your free time into it.


Plus there may be too few fun jobs for everyone to do, but that doesn't really matter for you. All you need to do is make sure you're the one to get a job as soon as it comes up by being better then the rest and not settling for being mediocre like everyone else. The whole world's made of mediocre people and that's why there are so few good jobs (and incidentally that's also why the world is in such a mediocre shape)

Yes I realize there is more I could technically be doing now.  At the same time, I need to be aware of my capacities.  Nobody can function properly for long without taking any time to manage stress.  I never met the grandfather whose name I inherited because he died of a heart attack in his mid-30's from overwork.  The same could easily happen to me.  I had the second MRSA infection of my life not too long ago, and both have happened at times of great stress.  This last one happened shortly after I pledged to give up gaming until I got a better job, and damn near lost me my arm.

The majority of people honestly do the best they can, but all have their unique mix of inner demons and outer circumstances to contend with.

[Nikov]

1. And if the whole country has free healthcare, what keeps all the sick people in the world from coming to it? If you say that free healthcare won't work on one level, why should I believe it will work on any level? What's the difference between Rhode Island and Liechtenstein that magically enables heath care to work in tiny Liechtenstein but not bustling Rhode Island?

2. That begs the question that the federal government has zero power.

[Aqizzar]

1. And if the whole country has free healthcare, what keeps all the sick people in the world from coming to it? If you say that free healthcare won't work on one level, why should I believe it will work on any level? What's the difference between Rhode Island and Liechtenstein that magically enables heath care to work in tiny Liechtenstein but not bustling Rhode Island?

Liechtenstein has a lot more money than Rhode Island for starters, money coming from outside their country.  More to the point, universal healthcare works on any level, it just works better the more people it has, because the paying-vs-using ratio keeps getting bigger.  As for people coming from around the world for healthcare, anybody with the means to legally immigrate could probably get proper healthcare, and would become a tax paying citizen even if they went for it.

And the first person to say "anchorbaby" gets punched in the throat.

[Leafsnail]

1. And if the whole country has free healthcare, what keeps all the sick people in the world from coming to it? If you say that free healthcare won't work on one level, why should I believe it will work on any level? What's the difference between Rhode Island and Liechtenstein that magically enables heath care to work in tiny Liechtenstein but not bustling Rhode Island?

Quite simply because you can control immigration into a country, and make immigrants pay to use your healthcare services before they get citizenship.

I guess you could start doing that with states, but limiting people's abilities to move around doesn't seem to be a great way to promote freedom.

2. That begs the question that the federal government has zero power.

Huh?

[Nikov]

Rhode Island's GDP is $48 billion compared to $5 billion in Leichtenstein, although Leichtenstein has a much higher per-capita figure, but whatever. That misses the point entirely. If it works on any level, prove it at the state level before you force it on the national level. Once you make it work, I'm willing to look at the results and reconsider. However when I read articles like this one, at CNN of all places, I come to think that the current plan doesn't work, and making it bigger probably will just make it worse.

But then, I don't think its the federal government's role to take everyone else's money to pay for my personal welfare. We likely disagree on that more than any particular bit of policy, so discussing the policy will just result in butting heads since the disagreement runs deeper. I think there's something to be said for a state government dabbling in such programs, since if a very successful system does come out of one of the fifty states the rest can tailor it to their own needs, and in an exceedingly limited way national programs for the welfare of certain persons, but I'm referring to things like veteran's care and possibly childbirth expenses (after all, how could you hate new mothers and newer taxpayers?). But why should marathon runners in San Francisco pay for donut-munching layabouts in Jersey when they get their inevitable heart attack? If they volunteered to buy the same insurance policy, that's fine. But if they were forced to buy the same policy, that uses coercion to make the responsible pay for the irresponsible. That is no basis for a just society of free citizens.