A question for the Libertarians.

Users who are viewing this thread

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
Time and time again I hear the cry to shrink the federal government down to what is allowed in the constitution (at least as you see it)
That you want the power to reside within the states.

Ok, so let's imagine for a moment that your wish came true. That tomorrow the federal government was shrunk down to your ideal size and the power was put back into the hands of the states...

What exactly changes?

I can almost guarantee you that every federal program that was dismantled would be somehow enabled at the state level. There would still be SS, medicare and medicaid or some form of it. The departments established for protections and well being of it's citizens would still be there... The only difference I see is that I would be paying much more in state taxes and less in federal. And we would have a very ineffective hodge podge of states spending way too much money working against themselves trying to be different.

So how does this change anything?
 
  • 9
    Replies
  • 442
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Time and time again I hear the cry to shrink the federal government down to what is allowed in the constitution (at least as you see it)
That you want the power to reside within the states.

Ok, so let's imagine for a moment that your wish came true. That tomorrow the federal government was shrunk down to your ideal size and the power was put back into the hands of the states...

What exactly changes?

I can almost guarantee you that every federal program that was dismantled would be somehow enabled at the state level. There would still be SS, medicare and medicaid or some form of it. The departments established for protections and well being of it's citizens would still be there... The only difference I see is that I would be paying much more in state taxes and less in federal. And we would have a very ineffective hodge podge of states spending way too much money working against themselves trying to be different.

So how does this change anything?
It decentralizes power, first and foremost.
Also, the "ineffective hidge podge" is fifty opportunities for improvement, each with relatively comparable programs with which to compare itself, rather than one behemoth one-size-fits-all monopoly that does not improve.
We can start there.
 

retro

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,886
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Like Accountable said... decentralization. I don't have an issue with those programs... I have an issue with those programs being run and regulated by the Federal Government. I've said on numerous occasions that if a state wants to implement single-payer health care, then by all means, do so. But the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to do so under the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government is fast approaching where the English government was when America declared its independence. Look at the secessionist movements in Texas... the things they're citing aren't all that dissimilar from what our Founding Fathers cited in the lead up to independence.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
For something like medical insurance, larger pools reduce costs. The other problem is our fearless leaders who really don't want any business regulated. The size and power of the Federal government, if it is handled correctly has more abilities than at the State level for things such as environmental protection and natural disasters.

And once the Federal government has been dismantled, they will go to work on the States.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
Like Accountable said... decentralization. I don't have an issue with those programs... I have an issue with those programs being run and regulated by the Federal Government. I've said on numerous occasions that if a state wants to implement single-payer health care, then by all means, do so. But the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to do so under the 10th Amendment. The Federal Government is fast approaching where the English government was when America declared its independence. Look at the secessionist movements in Texas... the things they're citing aren't all that dissimilar from what our Founding Fathers cited in the lead up to independence.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/260163/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-wed-jul-20-2011#s-p2-so-i0

Watch from about 6:15 to 11:30.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
For something like medical insurance, larger pools reduce costs. The other problem is our fearless leaders who really don't want any business regulated. The size and power of the Federal government, if it is handled correctly has more abilities than at the State level for things such as environmental protection and natural disasters.

And once the Federal government has been dismantled, they will go to work on the States.
They don't want to dismantle the federal gov't. It's their favorite puppet. Now they don't have to have a company town or anything. The gov't takes care of it.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
They don't want to dismantle the federal gov't. It's their favorite puppet. Now they don't have to have a company town or anything. The gov't takes care of it.

Do you really think that the powerful business interests that don't want Federal regulation, would be find and dandy with State regulation? Please look at the goal for once. Same goes for taxes.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
They don't want to dismantle the federal gov't. It's their favorite puppet. Now they don't have to have a company town or anything. The gov't takes care of it.

Do you really think that the powerful business interests that don't want Federal regulation, would be find and dandy with State regulation? Please look at the goal for once. Same goes for taxes.
My post was only a few words long. Read it again. They don't want to get rid of federal gov't. You continuously and consistently mistake words for action and public statements as private convictions. If corporations had wanted to "dismantle" federal gov't they would have paid for federalists instead of progressives. They like big, centralized government. The smoke screen of regulation serves well to keep any potential competition from even starting, or failing that, from getting a foothold.

Take this new mileage requirement President Obama announced. Do you think the big car manufacturers are against it? Yes, it will cost them a bit more to manufacture, but those costs are easily passed down to the consumer. But it's an additional cost that some young entrepreneur can't afford, and so he'll never get his better idea off the ground. Federal regulations aren't a weapon against big corporations, they're a moat protecting them.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
lol.gif
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top