Bryant wrote:(SWGO)SirPepsi wrote:States were entrusted with the majority of power b/c people believed that a Federal Government couldn't effectively administer localities and the like. As times changed, however, the Union melded together, and, after the Civil War, state's lost much of their power. Whether or not you agree with this gradual shift, you must recognize that decentralized rule is no longer plausible in a world like ours. I strongly support limits on the National Gov'ts power, just so you know, but it diminishes cohesiveness to have each state constantly at odds with each other, and in a globalized society, where travel is more common, business is conducted across states - and countries too, each state having its own currency, its own laws which may contradict laws in other states (or federal laws) makes it inordinately difficult to govern.
So wrong. It had nothing to do with effectiveness, but fear of centralized power. Centralized power = tyranny. It has been commonly recognized for hundreds of years that central power is by far more effective, but also by far the most tyrannical. Checks in balance system is also a part of this decentralization - is it no longer plausible? A centralized power is the fastest way to lose freedom.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Only those powers deemed absolutely necessary were purposely given to the government (thus the shift from the Article of Confederation to our current government - currency for trade, tax for military, judges for order). I believe there are 2 overarching principles to our government: 1) The people should by default have all power and rights, giving up only what is necessary. 2) Change should be as slow as possible with as much (political) conflict as possible. I think the reason for these principles was to keep us a republic. One is to protect us from tyranny and the other is to stop us from becoming too democratic.
Why must I recognize that decentralization is no longer plausible? Keep in mind that I'm not asking for per-constitution government.
Ultimately the worst part about our society is not the government, but the people themselves. The majority of people are so detached from the political process, they either pretend to know what's going on or just blatantly don't care. They are quickly and easily swayed merely by the title of a bill or headline. They trust and become polarized to sources that say what they want to hear. It's the perfect breeding ground for corruption and deception.
Mandalore wrote:Low blow Dread...I live like fifteen minutes away from you and you've never given me that offer ;)
Mandalore wrote:Only in America would I even be close to considered a liberal, lol. And just because I'm not old as [poo] like you, doesn't mean I'm 12. Got me on that Atheist bit though...and we do love our whiskey, you should ask Hitchens about his alcohol in Hell.
Mandalore wrote:I'm American, you dumb twit. And America's tax rate is among the lowest in the industrialized world. Really it's the little guys who pay, large corporations have entire divisions set to wriggle their way out of taxes and they're very good at it.
And even in American I'm either Center-left, Center, or center-right. Really the only thing I'm liberal on is letting dudes [m'kay] dudes and chicks [m'kay] chicks and not getting my [Richard] in a knot about it. Otherwise my support of the death penalty, gun rights, privatizing social security, and tougher entitlement spending generally puts me on the right, even in America. In Europe I would be considered pretty far right on their political spectrum.
Return to Non-Game Discussions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests