Startle Response Linked to Political Views

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
True, but both (R) and (D) seem addicted to this worthless and counterproductive 'war on drugs'. At least some (D)'s support legalization of marijuana. Perhaps the dumbest thing on earth is spending so much money (and man-hours of police work) on jail/prison space for non-violent MJ offenders.

Drugs used to be legal, and that took the profit from the dealers hands. They were cheap, and low-class, and they weren't a scourge of society that caused gang wars and incredible expense.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. You may grow up in larger cities with more people, and are there for more susceptible to "mob/hive mentality" way of thinking, than people that live in wide open spaces, and are actually responsible for taking care of themselves and their families.

Hive mentality only works if emotions are cut out of the equation, and that simply isn't possible with humans.

See, we can all be crazy just like Moonbeam if we try.
People living in open spaces taking care of themselves? Please. Unless you're talking about the Amish that's a fairy tale.

IMO Moonbeam isn't crazy, he's deep. Butterbean is crazy. :p

 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
Actually, I think it's the perfect answer.

First, it takes all the $$$ away from the gangs/dealers. Second, it frees up MASSIVE amounts of tax money and expense at all levels of the judicial/law enforcement system, so that attention can be paid to serious crime (particularly violent crime). You can put rapists and carjackers away for 60 years instead of 6, because you don't have a non-violent hillbilly serving 50 years for some home-brew meth.

Now, you do charge people for PI, DUI, etc, and perhaps use some pretty strong sentencing guidelines on that. Mandatory removal of driver's license, hefty fines, and jail time.

And of course, selling/supplying to minors = prison.

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
Actually, I think it's the perfect answer.

First, it takes all the $$$ away from the gangs/dealers. Second, it frees up MASSIVE amounts of tax money and expense at all levels of the judicial/law enforcement system, so that attention can be paid to serious crime (particularly violent crime). You can put rapists and carjackers away for 60 years instead of 6, because you don't have a non-violent hillbilly serving 50 years for some home-brew meth.

Now, you do charge people for PI, DUI, etc, and perhaps use some pretty strong sentencing guidelines on that. Mandatory removal of driver's license, hefty fines, and jail time.

And of course, selling/supplying to minors = prison.
How many people have you known that were addicted to coke, acid, heroin, or other synthetic drugs that are or were close friends of yours? Did they have kids?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
^^ Those people will likely be addicted just as easily whether it's legal or not. How many people do you know who have done / do drugs?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
You don't have to do that. You just let the states decide, as it should be. Most states would maybe legalize marijuana, and a few may even legalize cocaine. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Bottom line is anything at all would take at least some power and resources away from criminals. And the more the better. And what people are afraid of, that a bunch of Americans would end up being being drug users, is already the case.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ Those people will likely be addicted just as easily whether it's legal or not. How many people do you know who have done / do drugs?
Enough to realize that your opinion is based on a lack of experience and understanding of how much these kinds of drugs can effect someone's life and the lives around them. You think they are only different from alcohol and weed because they are illegal? You got another thing coming if they remove those laws. Thankfully, that will never happen because those in power are smarter than that.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
You know, now that I actually take this thread seriously....

Wasn't there a study awhile back that concluded Republicans are generally happier people than democrats?

Wouldn't that contradict these findings?

Or I have a better idea.

Wouldn't that imply that these studies are 100%, completely, and utterly, Idiotic?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ Those people will likely be addicted just as easily whether it's legal or not. How many people do you know who have done / do drugs?
Enough to realize that your opinion is based on a lack of experience and understanding of how much these kinds of drugs can effect someone's life and the lives around them. You think they are only different from alcohol and weed because they are illegal? You got another thing coming if they remove those laws. Thankfully, that will never happen because those in power are smarter than that.
Those people are so smart, they spend billions of our dollars trying to keep them out of our borders, and they can't even keep them out of our schools. Their freakin' brilliant, like you said.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ Those people will likely be addicted just as easily whether it's legal or not. How many people do you know who have done / do drugs?
Enough to realize that your opinion is based on a lack of experience and understanding of how much these kinds of drugs can effect someone's life and the lives around them. You think they are only different from alcohol and weed because they are illegal? You got another thing coming if they remove those laws. Thankfully, that will never happen because those in power are smarter than that.
Those people are so smart, they spend billions of our dollars trying to keep them out of our borders, and they can't even keep them out of our schools. Their freakin' brilliant, like you said.
Thank you :)

People need to start understanding that just making something 'illegal', or throwing gov't resources at it, doesn't always help.

And yes, I volunteer at the Salvation Army, and work with addicts on a weekly basis, mostly crack and heroin, and virtually all are alcoholics to boot. These people would still be the same people if drugs were 100% legal. Do you think Joe Citizen is gonna start suddenly shooting up heroin just because it's suddenly legal to do so? Yeah right. Just like prohibition, those who will drink, will, those who will smoke weed, will, those who want hard drugs, will get them, it's just a matter of whether we're wasting tremendous resources 'fighting' these issues from the wrong way.

Instead of billions of dollars on law enforcement, and making fortunes for gangs and drug dealers, spend a TENTH of that on drug treatment and long-term rehabilitation centers, and watch what happens.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
You don't have to do that. You just let the states decide, as it should be. Most states would maybe legalize marijuana, and a few may even legalize cocaine. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Bottom line is anything at all would take at least some power and resources away from criminals. And the more the better. And what people are afraid of, that a bunch of Americans would end up being being drug users, is already the case.
Yes, it does have to be all or nothing. If you let one state legalize coke and the neighboring state decides that it is illegal then how do you stop them from conflicting with each other? How do you prevent the coke from the state which it is legal from entering the borders of the state which is making it illegal?

Furthermore, who is to blame for that happening and who is going to pay for preventing it from happening? Do you force the state who legalized the drug to pay for that shared border's security because it is their fault for legalizing it or do you force the state that made the drug illegal to pay for the security because they are the ones who are choosing to not want it in their state? What if the two states do not agree to come to a decision because neither feels that they should have to spend their tax dollars to fund it? Do you have any idea how much money and time it will cost just to resolve these kinds of conflicts between the states? I guarantee that there will be tons of them if we give the states as much power as you want to give them. Their laws will end up heavily conflicting with each other in many cases which wastes tons of time and money. It can also reduce unity between the people because they will blame each other for their problems.

That's just the tip of iceberg. You want to talk about how much the different states rely on each other economically next? Isolation of this degree is a thing of the past. It is gone for good. The world has changed. It is much smaller and intertwined. There is nothing that we can do to stop that now.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ Those people will likely be addicted just as easily whether it's legal or not. How many people do you know who have done / do drugs?
Enough to realize that your opinion is based on a lack of experience and understanding of how much these kinds of drugs can effect someone's life and the lives around them. You think they are only different from alcohol and weed because they are illegal? You got another thing coming if they remove those laws. Thankfully, that will never happen because those in power are smarter than that.
Those people are so smart, they spend billions of our dollars trying to keep them out of our borders, and they can't even keep them out of our schools. Their freakin' brilliant, like you said.

Mhmm

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does

The problem you are suggesting is very real and worthy of reform to a degree. However, your "solution" is fucking awful.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ Those people will likely be addicted just as easily whether it's legal or not. How many people do you know who have done / do drugs?
Enough to realize that your opinion is based on a lack of experience and understanding of how much these kinds of drugs can effect someone's life and the lives around them. You think they are only different from alcohol and weed because they are illegal? You got another thing coming if they remove those laws. Thankfully, that will never happen because those in power are smarter than that.
Yarrr, one of me uncles had a cancerous lung removed because of his indulgence in the tobacco plant. Another has cirrhosis from his addiction to grog and spirits. Illegal drugs can be as bad or worse, sure, but marijuana is, by way of comparison, far less dangerous than either tobacco or spirits. Methinks, then, that the illegal drug war is somewhat absurd? Aye, perchance...
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Arkaign
^^ Those people will likely be addicted just as easily whether it's legal or not. How many people do you know who have done / do drugs?
Enough to realize that your opinion is based on a lack of experience and understanding of how much these kinds of drugs can effect someone's life and the lives around them. You think they are only different from alcohol and weed because they are illegal? You got another thing coming if they remove those laws. Thankfully, that will never happen because those in power are smarter than that.
Yarrr, one of me uncles had a cancerous lung removed because of his indulgence in the tobacco plant. Another has cirrhosis from his addiction to grog and spirits. Illegal drugs can be as bad or worse, sure, but marijuana is, by way of comparison, far less dangerous than either tobacco or spirits. Methinks, then, that the illegal drug war is somewhat absurd? Aye, perchance...
I don't have a problem with weed being legalized.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
You don't have to do that. You just let the states decide, as it should be. Most states would maybe legalize marijuana, and a few may even legalize cocaine. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Bottom line is anything at all would take at least some power and resources away from criminals. And the more the better. And what people are afraid of, that a bunch of Americans would end up being being drug users, is already the case.
Yes, it does have to be all or nothing. If you let one state legalize coke and the neighboring state decides that it is illegal then how do you stop them from conflicting with each other? How do you prevent the coke from the state which it is legal from entering the borders of the state which is making it illegal?

Furthermore, who is to blame for that happening and who is going to pay for preventing it from happening? Do you force the state who legalized the drug to pay for that shared border's security because it is their fault for legalizing it or do you force the state that made the drug illegal to pay for the security because they are the ones who are choosing to not want it in their state? What if the two states do not agree to come to a decision because neither feels that they should have to spend their tax dollars to fund it? Do you have any idea how much money and time it will cost just to resolve these kinds of conflicts between the states? I guarantee that there will be tons of them if we give the states as much power as you want to give them. Their laws will end up heavily conflicting with each other in many cases which wastes tons of time and money. It can also reduce unity between the people because they will blame each other for their problems.

That's just the tip of iceberg. You want to talk about how much the different states rely on each other economically next? Isolation of this degree is a thing of the past. It is gone for good. The world has changed. It is much smaller and intertwined. There is nothing that we can do to stop that now.

I disagree strongly on your point about interstate transport. There are already laws wrt transporting firearms, explosives, alcohol, prescription narcotics, and everything else that is taxed/regulated at a state level. This just adds one more element to the list. Yeah it costs money to enforce this stuff, but the states are already spending this money to a large degree. If the citizens of a given state are so concerned about legal drugs crossing their borders then they can vote to increase funding to the highway patrol or whatever. The idea that Idaho might be scared of drugs coming in from Washington is no reason to keep ridiculous federal prohibition laws in place. It shouldn't even factor into the discussion.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
You don't have to do that. You just let the states decide, as it should be. Most states would maybe legalize marijuana, and a few may even legalize cocaine. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Bottom line is anything at all would take at least some power and resources away from criminals. And the more the better. And what people are afraid of, that a bunch of Americans would end up being being drug users, is already the case.
This ridiculous notion that simply letting states decide more things will solve problems is just about the most layman political view there is.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
This ridiculous notion that simply letting states decide more things will solve problems is just about the most layman political view there is.
State autonomy is a great tool for testing political ideals on a micro scale before going macro.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
You don't have to do that. You just let the states decide, as it should be. Most states would maybe legalize marijuana, and a few may even legalize cocaine. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Bottom line is anything at all would take at least some power and resources away from criminals. And the more the better. And what people are afraid of, that a bunch of Americans would end up being being drug users, is already the case.
Yes, it does have to be all or nothing. If you let one state legalize coke and the neighboring state decides that it is illegal then how do you stop them from conflicting with each other? How do you prevent the coke from the state which it is legal from entering the borders of the state which is making it illegal?
You can't. And what we have now doesn't stop anything either. So?

Furthermore, who is to blame for that happening and who is going to pay for preventing it from happening? Do you force the state who legalized the drug to pay for that shared border's security because it is their fault for legalizing it or do you force the state that made the drug illegal to pay for the security because they are the ones who are choosing to not want it in their state? What if the two states do not agree to come to a decision because neither feels that they should have to spend their tax dollars to fund it? Do you have any idea how much money and time it will cost just to resolve these kinds of conflicts between the states? I guarantee that there will be tons of them if we give the states as much power as you want to give them. Their laws will end up heavily conflicting with each other in many cases which wastes tons of time and money. It can also reduce unity between the people because they will blame each other for their problems.

That's just the tip of iceberg. You want to talk about how much the different states rely on each other economically next? Isolation of this degree is a thing of the past. It is gone for good. The world has changed. It is much smaller and intertwined. There is nothing that we can do to stop that now.
States will deal with their own people, not the other states. Same thing for alcohol, have you ever heard of "dry counties?"

You seem to think it would be such a problem for states then, but can't you see they have the exact same problems now? And they don't get the positive aspect that is the tax they could impose that they can't now.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Xavier434
The problem you are suggesting is very real and worthy of reform to a degree. However, your "solution" is fucking awful.
No, what we have now is awful. Nothing wrong with letting states decide. Those counties and towns could also keep possession illegal even being in a state that chooses to legalize. Again, just like booze.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: bamacre
Not mention, if he wants to help prevent those "drive by shooters," he'd support ending this ridiculous drug war which only empowers the criminals he is complaining about. Of course, he's not going to get that with the Democrats, who seem to be focused on the guns rather than the true roots of the problems.
I'm not going to argue that the war on drugs doesn't need to be redefined and refocused because it most certainly does, but to simply open the gates and let everyone freely use whatever drugs they want legally is just not the answer. All that will do is replace one set of problems with a different set of problems. That is not what I consider a real solution. Beyond that, all that is left is a debate about which set of problems is worse and that is purely subjective.
You don't have to do that. You just let the states decide, as it should be. Most states would maybe legalize marijuana, and a few may even legalize cocaine. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Bottom line is anything at all would take at least some power and resources away from criminals. And the more the better. And what people are afraid of, that a bunch of Americans would end up being being drug users, is already the case.
This ridiculous notion that simply letting states decide more things will solve problems is just about the most layman political view there is.
Many of our founders would disagree, but then they were able to predict problems that the federal government would create, which you fail to see with your own eyes living today.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Furthermore, who is to blame for that happening and who is going to pay for preventing it from happening? Do you force the state who legalized the drug to pay for that shared border's security because it is their fault for legalizing it or do you force the state that made the drug illegal to pay for the security because they are the ones who are choosing to not want it in their state? What if the two states do not agree to come to a decision because neither feels that they should have to spend their tax dollars to fund it? Do you have any idea how much money and time it will cost just to resolve these kinds of conflicts between the states? I guarantee that there will be tons of them if we give the states as much power as you want to give them. Their laws will end up heavily conflicting with each other in many cases which wastes tons of time and money. It can also reduce unity between the people because they will blame each other for their problems.

That's just the tip of iceberg. You want to talk about how much the different states rely on each other economically next? Isolation of this degree is a thing of the past. It is gone for good. The world has changed. It is much smaller and intertwined. There is nothing that we can do to stop that now.
States will deal with their own people, not the other states. Same thing for alcohol, have you ever heard of "dry counties?"

You seem to think it would be such a problem for states then, but can't you see they have the exact same problems now? And they don't get the positive aspect that is the tax they could impose that they can't now.
Except you would run into the same problem that we have with Mexico except it would be a conflict between states instead of countries. We are a single nation of "united" states and I would like to keep it that way. How the hell do you expect to keep peace and harmony between those states if you are going to put them in positions where they conflict with each other so much? Who is going to moderate? Do you think that the states will just magically not conflict with each other and that problems will just magically be solved even though the conflict is shared and the opinions on the solutions and who pays for them differs?

Ya, that isn't a recipe for division between states. :roll: That is anything but unity.

I don't even know why I bother arguing with you. You are just another worthless libertopian. You shame true libertarians who are more flexible. You would rather scream "FOUNDING FATHERS! NWO! DOWN WITH THE FED!" than actually listen to and consider a form of reason. Your country never existed. Libertopia is a myth.

Libertopia != United States. It never did and it never will.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,376
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Libertopia != United States. It never did and it never will.
^^ Nice way to make up words :)

FYI, states rights were a lot more robust before the Civil War. There is a good/bad side to everything.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Except you would run into the same problem that we have with Mexico except it would be a conflict between states instead of countries.
No, it wouldn't.

It would work the same way as dry counties act toward alcohol.

We are a single nation of "united" states and I would like to keep it that way. How the hell do you expect to keep peace and harmony between those states if you are going to put them in positions where they conflict with each other so much? Who is going to moderate? Do you think that the states will just magically not conflict with each and that problems will just magically be solved even though the conflict is shared and the opinions on the solutions and who pays for them differs?
I don't understand this mentality at all. Why do you think states would want to fight each other? They deal with their own people and that's that.

Ya, that isn't a recipe for division between states. That is anything but unity.
Using the same logic, as it is now, there are no states. Just the federal government and 300+ million people.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Except you would run into the same problem that we have with Mexico except it would be a conflict between states instead of countries.
No, it wouldn't.

It would work the same way as dry counties act toward alcohol.

We are a single nation of "united" states and I would like to keep it that way. How the hell do you expect to keep peace and harmony between those states if you are going to put them in positions where they conflict with each other so much? Who is going to moderate? Do you think that the states will just magically not conflict with each and that problems will just magically be solved even though the conflict is shared and the opinions on the solutions and who pays for them differs?
I don't understand this mentality at all. Why do you think states would want to fight each other? They deal with their own people and that's that.

Ya, that isn't a recipe for division between states. That is anything but unity.
Using the same logic, as it is now, there are no states. Just the federal government and 300+ million people.
What is the point of even having states if we do what you want? Why not just have every state secede and become their own country? All you would have to do is have each state open a up a division for foreign affairs and trade and you would be all set.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Xavier434
What is the point of even having states if we do what you want?
:confused:

I should be asking you that question. If the federal government gets to decide everything, why even have states?

Why not just have every state secede and become their own country? All you would have to do is have each state open a up a division for foreign affairs and trade and you would be all set.
The federal government is necessary, it has many roles, including protecting our rights and liberties recognized by the DoI and the Constitution. And what we have today is the opposite, a federal government that is trampling on individual and state rights as well. Perhaps re-read the constitution? ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY