F
star2589 said:I think the government needs to be restructured so that the federal government, rather than the states, has the most power.
today, people identify with the country much more than with their own state. information travels so efficiently, that people hear about what happens in other states as quickly as in their own. people simply no longer have the attitude that what happens in other states is none of their business.
the government needs to be restructured so that the federal government has the most power, but in a controlled fashion. unlike today, where the federal government has the most power but in an uncontrolled fashion.
Kandahar said:What's wrong with federalism? It's precisely BECAUSE information from one state quickly travels to another, that we should let the states do as they please. If there was minimal interference from the federal government, states could experiment with various policies and would quickly undergo Darwinian selection. If one state adopts a policy that clearly helps the state, other states will soon adopt similar policies. If one state adopts a policy that harms it, other states will avoid similar policies.
Kandahar said:If policies are nationalized, there is very little to compare them to. People would have no idea whether a policy is working; it simply is what it is. Other countries provide less valid comparisons than one state to another, because the other differences between countries are a lot greater than the differences between states.
star2589 said:we already have federalism, and the corruption we see today is the result.
star2589 said:maybe, but as things are today, the states are so similar to eachother that using other countries for comparison is more useful.
Kandahar said:How so?
Kandahar said:No, similarity is GOOD when comparing policies. If I'm comparing how effective certain policies are in New Hampshire and Vermont, which have similar histories, similar cultures, similar demographics, and similar government systems, the comparison is a lot more valid because there is a lot less that needs to be controlled for. If I was to compare, say, certain policies of the United States versus France, the comparison would be much less valid since the two have different histories, different cultures, different demographics, different forms of government, and are located in different parts of the world. That's not to say that such comparisons would be totally invalid, but they would be much less valid than comparisons between more similar entities.
It is because the states are similar to each other that makes the comparisons valid. If Oregon and Washington implement radically different policies toward, say, crime, then we can compare the crime rates in the two states in a few years and see which policy was more effective.
alphieb said:I don't think I would change a thing. Wouldn't that be a constitutional violation within itself?
alphieb said:Although I do agree, the second Amendment is confusing.
MrFungus420 said:Here, try this. It is gammatically identical to the Second Amendment:
A well educated electorate, being necessary to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.
Now, does that say that only the electorate is allowed to keep and read books, or is it a right given to people in general?
I hope that helps...
star2589 said:wouldnt what be a constitutional violation?
amending it isnt so long as you follow the process outlined in the constitution.
alphieb said:I stand corrected, actually there is a provision in the constitution that states subject to amendment. That is why the bill of rights was created. I guess I should know what I'm talking about before I go spewing things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?