Federal Government has ruined America

[ParanoiA]

Was thinking on this yesterday, and admittedly, I don't have my thoughts finalized on this...

 

I think the federal government has ruined America. I believe the intent of this great experiment was to unite states with an open architecture they can all operate differently in, but still with each other. But, with all of the federal laws and power gained incrementally over the years, states don't have much individuality at all. We habitually force laws on all of the states without a moment's consideration to leaving it up to the states to decide individually. And when someone suggests such a thing, they are an "extremist".

 

I don't understand why the idea of a libertarian federal government has never taken off in this country. It seems like the perfect platform for shaking down the various ideologies as they play out in the various states. Competition between the states could prove superior philosophies.

 

Also, some people define life by how long they live it...IE banning public smoking, trans fats and etc. And they're always at odds with those that define life by how free they live it - all the fat and cholesterol they can ingest, indifferent to second hand smoke. Why can't we both live in America the way we want?

 

Why must we perpetuate the erosion of state individuality? Why not push for a libertarian federal government, and focus our liberal/conservative/other views on the state level? Seems obvious to me.

[Realitycheck]

Because it's unconstitutional.

[ParanoiA]

Because it's unconstitutional.

 

It's quite constitutional, I'm not sure why you'd say that. In fact, it's arguably not constitutional for the federal government to be the presence it is today.

[ecoli]

MY guess, is that because people with the money see government as a another means of self-empowerment. Lobbyist and politicians like their power, and not many would run on a platform of decreasing their own power. That's simply not where the money is or where the advertising is. So, it's not where the votes are.

[waitforufo]

Permitting variability in governance between States and even between communities within States was considered good and promoted my many of our (U.S) founders. The problem is what do you do with failed States and communities?

 

I’m sure when the New Harmony Community failed it was a significant hardship on those that joined that community. I’m sure some nearby communities provided some of the participants with charity but the State didn’t do much to help them out. Should it have?

 

Polygamous Mormon communities in Utah and Arizona rely heavily on welfare (aid to families with dependant children). Most mothers and children are easily admitted to this social program since the mothers are legally unwed. By providing welfare aid, the State is perpetuating a failed community experiment. But can we let children of community experimenters starve?

 

So if a State embarks on a unique path, say universal medical coverage, and that State goes broke, should the other States bail them out, or should we just say “nice try, thanks for showing us that didn’t work out, must suck to be you.”

 

Perhaps another reason is that people don’t like the idea of differences that others might do better than them on their new path. Take Social Security for example. Let say this program was taken over by the States. Some States kept the program much like it is now. Other States privatized the system and let individuals make their own investment decisions with the State providing minimal retirement for the poor. This would mean that people between States and individuals within States are going to be provided with different retirement benefits. Those that do worse aren’t going to be happy. That’s the problem with most socialist programs. Since they can’t give all people the best, they require all to share equally in the mediocre.

[ParanoiA]

The problem is what do you do with failed States and communities?

 

Depends on why they're failed. If it's bad policies, then do nothing and let them fix themselves, as the country will be chaulk full of good examples.

 

But can we let children of community experimenters starve?

 

Yes, because they won't. No parent will let their child starve. They're not changing because we keep feeding them. There's no incentive to stop sponging off of the system. This is the liberal's paradox.

 

But that's a community experiment that isn't a government, itself. They can't pass laws and raise taxes or anything. It was designed to sponge.

 

So if a State embarks on a unique path, say universal medical coverage, and that State goes broke, should the other States bail them out, or should we just say “nice try, thanks for showing us that didn’t work out, must suck to be you.”

 

You say "nice try, thanks for showing us that didn't work out, must suck to be you".

 

Then, they change to a system that works. I'm not sure why you keep terminating these examples as if there's no going back, as if they're stuck with the bad system. Your examples are good ones in terms of demonstrating the strengths of a diversified union, trying things here and there, while the other states watch and take note. But nothing is permanent - if it doesn't work, then go back.

 

Perhaps another reason is that people don’t like the idea of differences that others might do better than them on their new path.

 

I think this is a good point. It's almost like we really don't want to know if liberalism is truly better than conservatism or etc. Although, I always thought that most ideologies are more about preferred "pros and cons" rather than which outperforms the other.

[Wormwood]

Hi ParanoiA; I think what you are noticing is the after effect of the civil war. A quick look at history will show you that the two political parties in this country were the federalists and the anti-federalists who kept each other in check. Then post civil war, there was the democrats and republicans which are basically two ineffective sides of the same worthless coin. There was no more question about the power of the federal government because too much state power allowed too much freedom, which was dangerous. Power was consolidated to the feds, and never returned to the states. This is quite clearly NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

[waitforufo]

I'm not sure why you keep terminating these examples as if there's no going back, as if they're stuck with the bad system. Your examples are good ones in terms of demonstrating the strengths of a diversified union, trying things here and there, while the other states watch and take note. But nothing is permanent - if it doesn't work, then go back.

 

Actually I am all in favor of a more diversified union. If we moved to such a union however we would have to be committed to letting different paths fail. We would also have to learn to be happy for those who find their own successful paths even when we don't want to change our own. Both of these conditions however, seem to be contrary to human nature.

[ParanoiA]

Hi ParanoiA; I think what you are noticing is the after effect of the civil war. A quick look at history will show you that the two political parties in this country were the federalists and the anti-federalists who kept each other in check. Then post civil war, there was the democrats and republicans which are basically two ineffective sides of the same worthless coin. There was no more question about the power of the federal government because too much state power allowed too much freedom, which was dangerous. Power was consolidated to the feds, and never returned to the states. This is quite clearly NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

So do you agree that it was too much freedom?

 

Actually I am all in favor of a more diversified union. If we moved to such a union however we would have to be committed to letting different paths fail. We would also have to learn to be happy for those who find their own successful paths even when we don't want to change our own. Both of these conditions however, seem to be contrary to human nature.

 

I believe you're right. But then, maybe we could just surround the "test" states with liberal ones so they'll bail them out.

[waitforufo]

I believe you're right. But then, maybe we could just surround the "test" states with liberal ones so they'll bail them out.

 

What happens if it's the liberal ones that fail? Those that follow the teaching of Adam Smith would argue that those with ability will just move to States with fewer people that need more than they produce. History is full of such examples.

[ParanoiA]

What happens if it's the liberal ones that fail? Those that follow the teaching of Adam Smith would argue that those with ability will just move to States with fewer people that need more than they produce. History is full of such examples.

 

Well I was just joking. But, in reality, I would let them fail. I don't believe a state would fall into economic despair and never recouperate if they change their policies. Also, in reality, there is commerce between states and incentive to "help your neighbor" without necessarily providing all out welfare.

 

Of course, this is where my thoughts aren't really worked out. There are a lot of dynamics here that I don't fully appreciate.

[GutZ]

I think deep down a lot of people prefer being told what to do, and not having to make up their own mind about any give aspect of how they want their country or state for that matter to run. I probably state this too often but a huge consequence to technologically advanced society allow for quicker everything, allowing so much to go on, that at the end of the day people just don't care. Pick a stance and support it. I am not saying it's not a good thing, I just think it sets the stage for large powerful governments.