Posted: Wed Jul 07, 2004 6:11 pm
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.
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.