Quote:
Originally Posted by davidd
Read your last sentence and then read it again.
What you just described is: competition and freedom
Two things we do not have under a strong centralized federal government.
|
What I described is not competition and freedom. It is the inability of governments, whether local or national, to effectively enforce laws without a well-defined and controlled border.
In my example, Massachusetts would gain absolutely nothing from having these laws, since the ease with which they can be circumvented means that their only effect would be a displacement of economic activity. The only competition that causes is a competition to ban or regulate as few things as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidd
Additionally, you are in the mindset that you have to obey the government. Why shouldn't the government obey the electorate? It is mindset that we have been forced to accept that is complete counter to all reasonable definitions of freedom/liberty.
|
The government represents the combined electorate. That is the very essence of representative democracy. Therefore, in theory, obeying the government merely means obeying the laws that the electorate has chosen.
Of course, in practice, it doesn't work this way - especially in the United States. Ironically, the reason for this is the emphasis on states in the American electoral system, which limits viable political choices enormously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidd
What issue do I have with the Federal government? In generalized terms, they exercise powers that were not granted to them by the ruling documents of this country... The Constitution. Starting in the early 1900's the liberties of the people have been stolen. The grand thefts occurred during times of turmoil... WWI, WWII, The Great Depression, Vietnam, 9/11, etc. Each time more power is given to Washington D.C. more and more freedoms are lost.
(I could go on for days)
-dd
|
An emphasis on the states would hardly solve this problem. In times of war and great crisis, the federal government will do whatever it deems necessary anyway. Instead, an emphasis on the states would merely solidify the influence of a particular layer of bureaucracy.