Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I will owe up to flaws in some of my earlier posts. They were rhetoric borne in reply to specific posters who I already know oppose the very notion of anything other than a single centralized authority.
Which case, I will refer you to viewing and arguing over my last post ? which I feel is much more to the point of the ?solution? to the problem we face in our government today.
Well, as I did in response to Vic I'll owe up as well to misjudging you at first as an anarchist libertarian (or something like that), whereas as you seem to accept government at the state/local level (so I guess you're a interstate anarchist, state/local conservative or something).
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
I agree that more local governments are more representative, since each individual's vote counts for more.
Not just voting percentages, but also it is easier to protest at a capitol 60-200 miles away from your home as opposed to a capitol 2,000+ miles away. So accessibility is an issue, which is part of holding them accountable.
But again, I ask you, how else do we solve national problems other than a national government? How do we, for instance, ensure that a company spanning multiple states follows environmental laws?
You?re asking me to come up with specifics for a new form of government. Not an easy task mind you, for if I alone had all the answers to everything ? I?d be much more useful elsewhere than at P&N. I will give it a shot.
Collectively, as a federal government the states may opt (they have the authority to deiced to participate) in environmental recommendations and studies. Then it would also be up to each state to individually have the authority to determine what to do about it.
Well, that sounds like the Articles of Confederation, which failed to accomplish much given their requirement of state unanimity for anything to take effect.
I guess my main point there is that, while there certainly are flaws in a democratic government trying to be accountable to 300 million people, ultimately there is no better system. Or, to borrow the famous Churchill quotation, its the worst system except all the others.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
If we left that solely to the states there would be no effective way to guarantee that
With regards to a company spanning multiple states, you?re right. The people of the states would have the inherent right of self determination and could decide for themselves if they wanted to apply the federal recommendations and/or apply their own local laws.
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
for instance, one state doesn't lower its standards to gain more investment, and thus the entire nation would eventually become more polluted (the tragedy of the commons sort of). For a real life example, Indiana has allowed BP to dump more pollution into lake Michigan, even though these new standards are lower than that of other states bordering lake Michigan. Without a higher power, what would regulate BP, and ensure that it does not use one state as an end-run to polluting a lake that is bordered by several other states.
The states negatively affected by lake pollution should have recourse. Perhaps the Supreme Court would hear and manage disputes among states. Then they (should) decide against the polluter and then what?
Your example is of a fairly bad scenario playing out where neighbors cannot get along. This is a dispute between states and I can see the role of the federal government is in solving this dispute. The authority they have to enforce a ruling, truly is a difficult answer. It needs to be effective, yet not undermine the state?s right of self determination.
I would argue that self determination ends when you negatively impact your neighbors, such as polluting a shared lake. The authority and teeth behind such decisions might come in the form of economic sanctions, or if necessary by force. The federal government must recognize itself as limited to settling disputes between states and use discretion in not using that power to determine the pollution levels of all lakes in every state.
In the end, my answer comes up short. I will have to research what our constitution says regarding disputes between states. For therein (I assume) lies the answer which pre-dates your question by 230 years.
Well, ultimately the answer there is for the federal government to step in regarding the disputes, assuming of course the states can't work it out themselves.
I guess my point is that the federal government's ?expansion? over the 230 years since the Constitution was laid in place hasn't occurred at the cost of much, if any, state power. States still retain tremendous control over running their own affairs, such as maintaining a police force, running their schools, and so forth. Federal power has expanded largely in response to an increase in national issues, tied in to the growth of the nation ? for instance, arbitrating the above scenario. Now, obviously you could argue states rights have been infringed on in matters such as abortion (i.e. affectively forcing states to accept that), but in most matters of federal involvement today I wouldn't really consider state rights, or self-determination, to be violated.
I think a large part of state-federal power disputes come from federal aid to the states. States obviously want the money with no strings attached, while the federal government does want some conditions on its use, since after all its the federal government getting the complains for the taxation in the first place.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
I agree with you that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional (I consider myself to be closest to a ?liberal? or ?progressive?, certainly not a neo-conservative, which we both oppose). I oppose this because it clearly violates several of the amendments and other legislation already passed.
How do we repeal it when neither political party, the rulers of Washington DC, will listen? What recourse do we have for them not listening to us? The larger government is, the larger the organization required to change it.
You cling to me for the answers, but if we aren?t to use secession and state/local authority, then what answer do you have? How do you envision solving our corrupted government?
We use the same means we do in the state government: pressure our elected officials to vote against such legislation, and if they do not then vote them out in favor of those who will represent our wishes. Now, obviously its harder to enact change in that way (changing state law requires a majority of a state to be mobilized against it, not a majority of the country), but ultimately I don't see any better way of running the federal government.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Yes, the 10th amendment does seem to limit the authority of the federal government, but there also exists the necessary and proper clause (and the commerce clause as well). They and the 10th amendment obviously conflict with each other, and I don't think you could say one is clearly more ?valid? than the other. Ultimately the Constitution is a document of compromise, one that intends a balance between the authority of the states to run themselves, and the ability of the federal government to supersede them to better carry out the will of the people. I think that balance has largely been met.
11% approval rating, and that ?Balance has largely been met?? I almost find that astonishing in light of modern discontent.
The 11% approval rating has to do with the current makeup of Congress. That likely has nothing to do with voter's satisfaction or not with the current balance between state and federal rights, just as that 11% doesn't mean only 11% approve of democracy itself.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I believe we witness what happens in other nations when the balance of power in this equation falls to everything ?necessary and proper?. I look to Soviet Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, and other dictatorial governments. I look at our current Democratic Party professing a populist view in higher taxes while people ignore the ramifications of those taxes.
Those countries also had a lack of democracy and repression of the people (far more so than a democracy imposes on the people). All the necessary and proper clause say is that the federal government can make use of powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution to serve the public interest.
As far as the Democratic Party, while they overall support higher taxes, with a skyrocketing national debt and a $2 trillion dollar war being fought and not being paid for with any new money, I don't see how we have any other choices (well, besides gigantic cuts in spending, but that would require the repeal of programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are supported by the majority of the people).
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Power can corrupt. Taxes equal money, money equals power. So through the power to collect taxes directly from the people ? the state authority is supplanted entirely. If the federal government so much as WANTED to enact a federal school system, they?d have the money to hang over our heads ? and we would obediently obey. Just because they haven?t done it YET, does not mean they will not consider it ?necessary and proper? later this century.
How is state authority supplanted by federal taxation? Does that mean local governments also lose their authority because states can tax?
I think you are also confusing the federal government to be an entity of its own. You forget that it is run by elected officials. If we do not like what they are doing, we have the power to deny them a re-election, and even to recall them (well, in some places at least). Ultimately a democracy rests on the support of the people. Without their support and tacit approval it cannot simply do whatever it wants. The federal government can only force you to do something so long as it enjoys enough support to remain in existence.
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Any hair brained idea these days is "necessary and proper". Nothing checks and balances that authority, and so I end up with nothing other than my solution.
Uh, the voters check the authority of the federal government, just like the voters check the authority of state governments and local governments.