27 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe system was subverted with the Federal Income tax. At that point, the federal government had the financial sway to circumvent state power. It worked just fine until that time.
[b]The fewer the voters the more your vote counts. Also, the closer your representative is to where you live the more representative he will be to your district.
But by that logic, the state level is not optimal at all - rather, it implies the smallest possible administrative districts (i.e. anarchy). Even at the county level, your vote will cot ...[text shortened]... epresentative will be closer. So why not focus more power away from the state into county hands?[/b]
I suppose if the state became too big and voter support for those in office were lagging, then decentralizing it more could be explored.
Of course, this is mere fantasy. Any suggestion of decentralization would be met with a Lincoln like iron Federal fist. They would rather kill us all off than give up their power over us.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by whodeySo why is the state level the optimal level at which to centralize power? And which powers specifically should be centered there, and which at other levels (federal, county, individual, ...)?
The system was subverted with the Federal Income tax. At that point, the federal government had the financial sway to circumvent state power. It worked just fine until that time.
I suppose if the state became too big and voter support for those in office were lagging, then decentralizing it more could be explored.
Of course, this is mere fantasy. A ...[text shortened]... oln like iron Federal fist. They would rather kill us all off than give up their power over us.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy main concern is the power of the purse. Whoever has it has all the power. Currently it is the US Federal government.
So why is the state level the optimal level at which to centralize power? And which powers specifically should be centered there, and which at other levels (federal, county, individual, ...)?
What happens is, people love the federal money their representative steals for their state, but hate the other 49 states that steal their federal dollars. What you wind up with are representatives continuing to be elected while the entire group of Congressmen suffer abysmal approval ratings.
So the first place to begin are those who have the power of the purse. Money I give should be given to those I can elect, and not to representatives of the other 49 states who I have no control over.
The main role that the federal government had under the Constitution was to play referee over the states, not to govern them.
All I want is a return of the government that was subverted from the states. As we can see in terms of deficits, the federal model is the worst possible scenario for whatever reason. It is broken and in its death throws.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by whodeyBut by that logic, why is the state level optimal, and not the county level?
My main concern is the power of the purse. Whoever has it has all the power. Currently it is the US Federal government.
What happens is, people love the federal money their representative steals for their state, but hate the other 49 states that steal their federal dollars. What you wind up with are representatives continuing to be elected while the ent ...[text shortened]... model is the worst possible scenario for whatever reason. It is broken and in its death throws.
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by whodeyOne aspect of many jurisdictions each having different laws is it's still possible to make comparisons. In Kaznakistan they regulate the hell out of A, B and C but they're a bit free an easy with E, F and G. Meanwhile over the border in Maruadia they go easy on A, B and C but hammer the hell out of citizens on E, F and G. It's still possible to turn your hands palms up and say WT F, what's the point of the Kaznakis regulating A, B and C and the Maraudians regulating E,F and G when people in each other country get by quite well with out the very same regs.
To suggest that I have ideas about how to collectively fix the US would make me a collectivist. No, no, I have no such intellectual mystical superpowers as do collectivists like Barak Obama that have magical one size fits all answers to the problems in life.
I am for greater representation by decentralizing power within government. I would much rather ...[text shortened]... l right given to us from God. For it is God who sets us free, and man that puts us in chains.
Sadly as regulation becomes more standardised young folk are growing up not even realising what freedom is, they may think themselves to be quite smart and worldly but they lose what it is to be essentially human, to live by ones own reason and to be responsible for the consequences of those choices.
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by Wajomayou give up freedom proportionally to the size of the population you share your country with and to some extent that freedom shrinks in direct proportion to the success of your country on the world stage. not ennumerated freedoms or freedoms you're supposed to have, but the freedom you actually have as joe schmo with 20 bucks in his back pocket when he gets in trouble with the law or is being screwed over by corp x.
One aspect of many jurisdictions each having different laws is it's still possible to make comparisons. In Kaznakistan they regulate the hell out of A, B and C but they're a bit free an easy with E, F and G. Meanwhile over the border in Maruadia they go easy on A, B and C but hammer the hell out of citizens on E, F and G. It's still possible to turn your ha ...[text shortened]... man, to live by ones own reason and to be responsible for the consequences of those choices.
02 Aug 13
Originally posted by whodey1913 was an eventful year, with the introduction of the income tax via the 16th amendment, the creation of the Fed, and the change from indirect choice of Senators, to direct election of them by the 17th amendment. A big year for progressives.
The system was subverted with the Federal Income tax. At that point, the federal government had the financial sway to circumvent state power. It worked just fine until that time.
I suppose if the state became too big and voter support for those in office were lagging, then decentralizing it more could be explored.
Of course, this is mere fantasy. A ...[text shortened]... oln like iron Federal fist. They would rather kill us all off than give up their power over us.
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by normbenignWoodrow Wilson was the anti-christ. Shrug.
1913 was an eventful year, with the introduction of the income tax via the 16th amendment, the creation of the Fed, and the change from indirect choice of Senators, to direct election of them by the 17th amendment. A big year for progressives.
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAlexis DeToqueville observed that American democracy emanated upwards and outward from the local (township) level, most of the detail at the local level, with general guidance from the State and Federal.
But by that logic, why is the state level optimal, and not the county level?
03 Aug 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignTo think that any "democratic" system is working when polls show those in power are not supported by the majority is a farce. To defend such a system is tyrannical.
Alexis DeToqueville observed that American democracy emanated upwards and outward from the local (township) level, most of the detail at the local level, with general guidance from the State and Federal.
If nothing else, Congress should have the power of the purse taken from it or disbanded since approval ratings have been abysmal to such a degree and for so long. Clearly it is a failed institution.
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by whodeyAny system can be ruined or deformed by the application of a single badly applied doctrine. There are numerous deformations of the original Constitutional standard.
To think that any "democratic" system is working when polls show those in power are not supported by the majority is a farce. To defend such a system is tyrannical.
If nothing else, Congress should have the power of the purse taken from it or disbanded since approval ratings have been abysmal to such a degree and for so long. Clearly it is a failed institution.
It can be fixed, but the question is will it be.
03 Aug 13
Originally posted by normbenignFixed? How can it be fixed?
Any system can be ruined or deformed by the application of a single badly applied doctrine. There are numerous deformations of the original Constitutional standard.
It can be fixed, but the question is will it be.
Are you suggesting that the powers that have been usurped can be stripped from the abusers? If so, by whom?
Once power is surrendered, it can never be taken back by peaceful means, unless you have examples otherwise.