"State" Governments

Yep.  Registration required to post.
Post Reply
71-1085092892

Post by 71-1085092892 »

Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 28 2001,12:29

Are they needed, or just a wasteful doubling up of efforts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Cakedaddy on Aug. 28 2001,12:51

I believe in delegation, so I'd say state gov is good. Plus, it provides some diversity. You don't like the speed limit here? Go to the other state where it's different. . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: thibodeaux on Aug. 28 2001,13:55

If done right, a multi-tiered system can provide useful checks and balances. For example, the original purpose U.S. Senators was to represent their respective states. They were chosen by the state legislators. This was changed in 1913 by the ratification of Amendment XVII.
Of course, one could argue that having a system in which state governments could block the national government might have certain bad consequences (e.g., the serial compromises on slavery that eventually led to the war of Northern Aggression).

Done badly, a multi-tiered system simply adds another burdensome layer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: GORDON on Aug. 28 2001,14:05

My initial instinct is that the less government (and consequently, beaurocracy) the better.
Just enough to enforce a few laws and keep the infrastructure in place.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Vince66 on Aug. 29 2001,10:25

State government should be doing most of what the Federal Government is doing now. Scale back Federal Government. Competition among states on how best to do it is the best way to come up with a good working model.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: TPRJones on Dec. 12 2001,17:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
State government should be doing most of what the Federal Government is doing now. Scale back Federal Government. Competition among states on how best to do it is the best way to come up with a good working model.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes! You hit the nail right on the head.

Where does everyone want to live? The state that rocks the house the most. Let states compete by having their own vastly different political and social structures (within the rough boundaries of the constitution, of course ... certain rules must be kept) and thus turn state politics into another form of capitalistic competition.

Besides, if you don't like a law, it's much easier to get enough votes on he state level to get it changed. Don't like what the Federal government is doing? Convince at least 50 times as many people, if you want to get anything done.

Ick.

Less government is good, I agree. Smaller governments (as in size of area governed) are even better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: csinc on Dec. 18 2001,14:09

Honestly, you could almost see the State/Federal governmental system relying heavily upon Feudal ideals. With each governmental structure you are abstracting the level of involvement. This can be good and bad, but you'd have to believe that the more local governments wouldn't need as much watching as they do today. Perhaps the problem is that the Federal government seems to think that their way is best and when a state doesn't comply, they try to force it and eventually they pass a law on it. Seems like the only thing necessary to make a multi-tiered government work is to make sure that the "live and let live within the bounds" is left alone.
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

GORDON wrote:Where does everyone want to live? The state that rocks the house the most. Let states compete by having their own vastly different political and social structures (within the rough boundaries of the constitution, of course ... certain rules must be kept) and thus turn state politics into another form of capitalistic competition.

Besides, if you don't like a law, it's much easier to get enough votes on he state level to get it changed. Don't like what the Federal government is doing? Convince at least 50 times as many people, if you want to get anything done.
In theory, I love this idea.

In reality, I don't. You mention that the states should be able to do as they please within the boundaries of the constitution. Well, the federal government certainly has acted within the realm of the constitution (if congress/socus are to be believed), yet I would state (as evidenced by the presence of this forum) that it fails to provide the level of satisfication a large number of individuals wants.

Also, 50 customized states sounds great, but the flexibility of companies and individuals is not fluid enough to allow for the system to work without significant disruption. Over the long term, mobility could occur and like-minded individuals congregate, but that would require a very long term.

That, and if I visit a state, I don't want to have to read up on its rules, versus my own state, etc. Granted, with travel so easy, most states would (hopefully) sign reciprocacity (sp) agreements and such, but I can imagine large differences existing.
It's not me, it's someone else.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

TheCatt wrote:Well, the federal government certainly has acted within the realm of the constitution
I strongly disagree with this statement.

The thing is, only the federal government is in charge of telling the federal government if it's following the rules or not. That's no good, IMO. If the states were doing most of the work with the federal government providing boundaries on what they can and can't do, it'd be much better, because then the enforcers would be different from those being enforced.

As to recoprocity, that could be one of the tenants of America II, which would simplify things a bit. Maybe in AL pot is legal, and if you visit MI and take it with you where it's illegal, our federal charter could insist that your first offense in any state other than your own (where it's not illegal) is warning and confiscation only. Now you've been informed, and so you're on your own.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

TPRJones wrote:
TheCatt wrote:Well, the federal government certainly has acted within the realm of the constitution

I strongly disagree with this statement.

The thing is, only the federal government is in charge of telling the federal government if it's following the rules or not. That's no good, IMO. If the states were doing most of the work with the federal government providing boundaries on what they can and can't do, it'd be much better, because then the enforcers would be different from those being enforced.
Well, that wasn't the whole statement. Re-read it, and it's pretty much the same as yours.
It's not me, it's someone else.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

TheCatt wrote:Re-read it, and it's pretty much the same as yours.
Nuh uh.

You said it wouldn't work. I answered with reasons why I thought it would in answer to the rest of your post (which I did read, as is obvious by my responding to your points).

Did you read the rest of mine?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

TPRJones wrote:
TheCatt wrote:Re-read it, and it's pretty much the same as yours.

Nuh uh.

You said it wouldn't work. I answered with reasons why I thought it would in answer to the rest of your post (which I did read, as is obvious by my responding to your points).

Did you read the rest of mine?
No, I was referring to the statment on the federal government acting within the bounds of the consitution, which is what you qouted.
It's not me, it's someone else.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Oh, okay. So we agree that the federal government can't police itself worth a damn.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

TPRJones wrote:Oh, okay. So we agree that the federal government can't police itself worth a damn.

Right, exactly.

We just have different views on how the states would react without a powerful federal government.




Edited By TheCatt on 1089394252
It's not me, it's someone else.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Well, while I'm very much in favor of a much smaller federal government, I never said I wanted a weak federal government. I don't want them doing veyr much except for watching the states to make sure they don't break our basic constitutional agreements, but they'll still have our full military force and all the guns and nukes they need to help back that up.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
TheCatt
Site Admin
Posts: 53728
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 11:15 pm
Location: Cary, NC

Post by TheCatt »

It's not me, it's someone else.
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

I would argue that this is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.

And if it's not, then in America II it should be.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Goddamnit. I leave that state & it goes to a slightly lower hell. I'll be driving back tomorrow for a couple days. Motherfuckers.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Post Reply