Where do you come down on the Jefferson Adams divide in their view on the strength of government?

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So is man basically good or evil? Do we need a strong central state to protect us against the dark side of our nature or is all that a mistake and what we need is to allow our natural goodness to flower by keeping the state rather small and at bey.

The strong state becomes the instrument of our dark side. Isn't that so very obvious?

If Hitler and Stalin did not prove it to you then nothing ever will. In the course of human events we have found governments in dire need of abolishment whether you?ll admit that or not.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm a Jeffersonian. A person should always be assumed to be good first, and treated as evil only as punishment for actually committing evil. It is a balancing act though. But it does no good to society to waste our efforts punishing those who have not actually done any harm.

Oh, and I'm a city boy, so I think I just threw a wrench in your theory, Moonie.

I agree. And same thing here, lived in Memphis all my life. Guns aren't the problem. The problems are bad local leadership, bad schools, and most of all, bad parenting.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

Let's use NYC as an example of a high density population.


Now the question becomes should that strong central authority come from NYC city hall or from Washington DC?

In theory the Republicans want that authority to come from NYC itself.
While the Democrats want that authority to come from the central government.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

Let's use NYC as an example of a high density population.


Now the question becomes should that strong central authority come from NYC city hall or from Washington DC?

In theory the Republicans want that authority to come from NYC itself.
While the Democrats want that authority to come from the central government.

In regards to what I put in bold, yes, in theory. That is changing, thanks to neo-conservatives.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

Looks like you just nailed the major weak spot of the left. They hate Bush and the current government, yet their answer to it is just more government. Then you have the so called party of small government that started all of this. They're all hypocrites.

Nah, he just went off on some bizarre tangent.

No tangent at all, you're just being ignorant as usual. You're always appealing to the need for more and more heavy handed central government under the misguided notion that it can be controlled. It can't. You then stated that western governments have done a good job maintaining a balance. I pointed out how stupid that is. The UK is spying on their citizens flagrantly. The US starts useless wars. Germany is stepping right back into their old goose-stepping boots. There's scarce little standing between most of the west and totalitarianism these days and it's getting worse not better.

You should really learn how to make the connect between one post and another. Maybe you wouldn't be such a useless tool around here if you could actually respond with something intelligent.

Those are exceptions not really pertaining to the topic at hand. Yes, a tangent.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

Let's use NYC as an example of a high density population.


Now the question becomes should that strong central authority come from NYC city hall or from Washington DC?

In theory the Republicans want that authority to come from NYC itself.
While the Democrats want that authority to come from the central government.

It really depends on the issue at hand. Some issues are too local for a National Authority to address, others to National for a Local Authority to address(although a Local Authority could certainly address National Issues within their jurisdiction).

 

[Dissipate]

The government is so insanely huge and out of control right now, this debate is meaningless.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

Let's use NYC as an example of a high density population.


Now the question becomes should that strong central authority come from NYC city hall or from Washington DC?

In theory the Republicans want that authority to come from NYC itself.
While the Democrats want that authority to come from the central government.

In regards to what I put in bold, yes, in theory. That is changing, thanks to neo-conservatives.

You need to get away from the slogans.

Neocon is a term that was applied to liberal Democrats who were strong on national security. It is one of the most misused terms in politics today. It has morphed from its original meaning to a cheap label put on people by those who oppose them.

As bad as the Republicans became on the last few years I don't think they would even begin to compare to what will happen if the Democrats have total control.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

Let's use NYC as an example of a high density population.


Now the question becomes should that strong central authority come from NYC city hall or from Washington DC?

In theory the Republicans want that authority to come from NYC itself.
While the Democrats want that authority to come from the central government.

In regards to what I put in bold, yes, in theory. That is changing, thanks to neo-conservatives.

You need to get away from the slogans.

Neocon is a term that was applied to liberal Democrats who were strong on national security. It is one of the most misused terms in politics today. It has morphed from its original meaning to a cheap label put on people by those who oppose them.

As bad as the Republicans became on the last few years I don't think they would even begin to compare to what will happen if the Democrats have total control.

Right, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld aren't neo-cons? Wolfowitz? Kristol?

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

I agree with Sandorski. Maintaining a reasonable balance is everything.

And, risking a slippery slope, if States can serve their populations better than the Fed how about taking that a step further by giving Local governments more control? No doubt Local governments know what's best for their interests. How about districts within that Local government? They could truly serve their population better than Federal, State, or Local.

The problem is that providing more power to lesser units creates feifdoms. While I also believe most men are inherently good, I understand that it only requires one or two that aren't to turn any system upside down.

Our problem has never been the many. It's always the few.

"Risking a slippery slope," if giving power to a larger central authority is better, how about taking that a step further and uniting all of North America under a common government? Or a Western Hemisphere government? Or a one-world government? No doubt this removes the risk of a fiefdom in the United States.

I've a radical view and that is that the U.S. as it stands is an inherently undemocratic system because of its size. I believe the only union between our states should be for a national defense fund, free interstate commerce, treaty negotiations, and absolutely nothing else. Washington has no business deciding policy for Anchorage just as London had no business making policy for New York.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

I agree with Sandorski. Maintaining a reasonable balance is everything.

And, risking a slippery slope, if States can serve their populations better than the Fed how about taking that a step further by giving Local governments more control? No doubt Local governments know what's best for their interests. How about districts within that Local government? They could truly serve their population better than Federal, State, or Local.

The problem is that providing more power to lesser units creates feifdoms. While I also believe most men are inherently good, I understand that it only requires one or two that aren't to turn any system upside down.

Our problem has never been the many. It's always the few.

"Risking a slippery slope," if giving power to a larger central authority is better, how about taking that a step further and uniting all of North America under a common government? Or a Western Hemisphere government? Or a one-world government? No doubt this removes the risk of a fiefdom in the United States.

I've a radical view and that is that the U.S. as it stands is an inherently undemocratic system because of its size. I believe the only union between our states should be for a national defense fund, free interstate commerce, treaty negotiations, and absolutely nothing else. Washington has no business deciding policy for Anchorage just as London had no business making policy for New York.

That is inevitable. In some form or another.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

I agree with Sandorski. Maintaining a reasonable balance is everything.

And, risking a slippery slope, if States can serve their populations better than the Fed how about taking that a step further by giving Local governments more control? No doubt Local governments know what's best for their interests. How about districts within that Local government? They could truly serve their population better than Federal, State, or Local.

The problem is that providing more power to lesser units creates feifdoms. While I also believe most men are inherently good, I understand that it only requires one or two that aren't to turn any system upside down.

Our problem has never been the many. It's always the few.

"Risking a slippery slope," if giving power to a larger central authority is better, how about taking that a step further and uniting all of North America under a common government? Or a Western Hemisphere government? Or a one-world government? No doubt this removes the risk of a fiefdom in the United States.

I've a radical view and that is that the U.S. as it stands is an inherently undemocratic system because of its size. I believe the only union between our states should be for a national defense fund, free interstate commerce, treaty negotiations, and absolutely nothing else. Washington has no business deciding policy for Anchorage just as London had no business making policy for New York.

If giving power to a larger central authority is better, how about taking that a step further and uniting all of Europe?

We're already headed in the direction of a one-world government and have been since humans moved from tribes, to cities, to states, to nations. The question is not if but when. I doubt we'll see it in our lifetime though.

 

[Moonbeam]

We know what economies of scale are. A powerful government can catalyze actions in areas where private business can't afford to invest, things like going to the moon, or some sort of energy revolution. Fifty states can do what one never could do. We have the international space station and the European particle accelerator, for examples.

Big can be powerful. Big can be inefficient. Things like motivation, sincerity, quality, planning experience, intelligence, resources, and a million others can affect success. Like so many things, what you get out is determined by what you put in.

I think a fixed attitude may just indicate that somebody isn't thinking but running a script, repeating old saws, regurgitating half truths.

 

[Siddhartha]

I do not want the government to tell what to do with my life but I love the Interstate highway system, National Institutes of Health, CDC, FDA, USDA, etc.

 

[WildHorse]

`.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: scott
History teaches that unchecked central government seeks expansion of its authority over people and grows onerous.

As people evolve and gradually improve as we always have over generations, the general masses will increasingly exercise responsible behavior and self-governance.

scott-

History proves that if you let another human being in general control your everyday lives they will try to expand that control. And history proves the second point I clipped out of your post to be the opposite; people that are working together - the mob mentality per se - have evolved to want more government control.

Moonbeam-

We can have it both ways. People that want everyday government intrusion can sign up for it; in exchange they receive free shelter, free health care, an appointed job, and three meals a day. Everyone else gets a free ride - as in freedom - from the government intrusion.

 

[ayabe]

Jefferson had many faces and it's hard to compare the Jefferson of 1776 with Jefferson the President.

I find this quote particularly telling, "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."

So current generations according to him are not bound by the laws of previous generations, nor are they responsible for their debt, i.e. the national debt. Government must have the consent of the governed.

This is a completely antithetical to what we have today obviously.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

I agree with Sandorski. Maintaining a reasonable balance is everything.

And, risking a slippery slope, if States can serve their populations better than the Fed how about taking that a step further by giving Local governments more control? No doubt Local governments know what's best for their interests. How about districts within that Local government? They could truly serve their population better than Federal, State, or Local.

The problem is that providing more power to lesser units creates feifdoms. While I also believe most men are inherently good, I understand that it only requires one or two that aren't to turn any system upside down.

Our problem has never been the many. It's always the few.

"Risking a slippery slope," if giving power to a larger central authority is better, how about taking that a step further and uniting all of North America under a common government? Or a Western Hemisphere government? Or a one-world government? No doubt this removes the risk of a fiefdom in the United States.

I've a radical view and that is that the U.S. as it stands is an inherently undemocratic system because of its size. I believe the only union between our states should be for a national defense fund, free interstate commerce, treaty negotiations, and absolutely nothing else. Washington has no business deciding policy for Anchorage just as London had no business making policy for New York.

That is inevitable. In some form or another.

Only because people like you can't stand the thought of anyone thinking or acting differently than you do. One World Uber Alles, eh?

 

[Vic]

A one-world government is undesirable from the standpoint of evolution.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

I agree with Sandorski. Maintaining a reasonable balance is everything.

And, risking a slippery slope, if States can serve their populations better than the Fed how about taking that a step further by giving Local governments more control? No doubt Local governments know what's best for their interests. How about districts within that Local government? They could truly serve their population better than Federal, State, or Local.

The problem is that providing more power to lesser units creates feifdoms. While I also believe most men are inherently good, I understand that it only requires one or two that aren't to turn any system upside down.

Our problem has never been the many. It's always the few.

"Risking a slippery slope," if giving power to a larger central authority is better, how about taking that a step further and uniting all of North America under a common government? Or a Western Hemisphere government? Or a one-world government? No doubt this removes the risk of a fiefdom in the United States.

I've a radical view and that is that the U.S. as it stands is an inherently undemocratic system because of its size. I believe the only union between our states should be for a national defense fund, free interstate commerce, treaty negotiations, and absolutely nothing else. Washington has no business deciding policy for Anchorage just as London had no business making policy for New York.

That is inevitable. In some form or another.

Only because people like you can't stand the thought of anyone thinking or acting differently than you do. One World Uber Alles, eh?

Just because it is acknowledged, doesn't mean it's accepted. I also think a one world government is going to happen, I don't like the idea of it though. It seems like a natural progression and there's not much we can do to stop it, especially considering the amount of people who don't vote.

It's not like it's going to be forced on anyone, either. people will choose it.

My prediction is going to be that in the future, when the government forms, they will offer economic benefits which would not be available to those countries who choose not to join. People will think of money, rather than liberty...

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Vic
I'm a Jeffersonian. A person should always be assumed to be good first, and treated as evil only as punishment for actually committing evil. It is a balancing act though. But it does no good to society to waste our efforts punishing those who have not actually done any harm.

Oh, and I'm a city boy, so I think I just threw a wrench in your theory, Moonie.

^^ winner, go kick Atreus's ass in the thread where he argues that we have no right to privacy.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2178570&enterthread=y

 

[Moonbeam]

What about, "one nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the principle that all men are created equal shall not perish from the earth?

Should the states have gone their separate ways? Should we allow some country to check out the evolutionary value of cannibalism?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

I agree with Sandorski. Maintaining a reasonable balance is everything.

And, risking a slippery slope, if States can serve their populations better than the Fed how about taking that a step further by giving Local governments more control? No doubt Local governments know what's best for their interests. How about districts within that Local government? They could truly serve their population better than Federal, State, or Local.

The problem is that providing more power to lesser units creates feifdoms. While I also believe most men are inherently good, I understand that it only requires one or two that aren't to turn any system upside down.

Our problem has never been the many. It's always the few.

"Risking a slippery slope," if giving power to a larger central authority is better, how about taking that a step further and uniting all of North America under a common government? Or a Western Hemisphere government? Or a one-world government? No doubt this removes the risk of a fiefdom in the United States.

I've a radical view and that is that the U.S. as it stands is an inherently undemocratic system because of its size. I believe the only union between our states should be for a national defense fund, free interstate commerce, treaty negotiations, and absolutely nothing else. Washington has no business deciding policy for Anchorage just as London had no business making policy for New York.

That is inevitable. In some form or another.

Only because people like you can't stand the thought of anyone thinking or acting differently than you do. One World Uber Alles, eh?

Just because it is acknowledged, doesn't mean it's accepted. I also think a one world government is going to happen, I don't like the idea of it though. It seems like a natural progression and there's not much we can do to stop it, especially considering the amount of people who don't vote.

It's not like it's going to be forced on anyone, either. people will choose it.

My prediction is going to be that in the future, when the government forms, they will offer economic benefits which would not be available to those countries who choose not to join. People will think of money, rather than liberty...

Really depends on how such a Government is setup. There are certainly Issues of Global Concern that would best be addressed by such an Authority. Air/Water Pollution for eg. It just takes 1 Nation to do whatever the hell it wants to muck up all other Nations attempts to correct/control various pollutions. Our experiences with the UN, World Bank, Kyoto Accord, and many other attempts to address Global Issues have shown the inherent flaws of trying to address issues of Global scope by coming to an agreement amongst 200(ish)Nations each only interested in their own interests.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Should the states have gone their separate ways?

If the south had been allowed to have the freedom to secede, we never would have had a President Nixon, a President George Bush 43, or many other disasters.

A half million Americans wouldn't have been killed by a war to restrict southerners' rights. We could have mutual defense treaties providing against invasion.

We already have the blue states paying more taxes than they get back, for paying for programs causing the south to get more back from the federal government than it pays.

The south today could be even more than it already is a source of cheap labor and agricultural goods, imported under free trade agreeements. Yee-hah.

 

[Gunslinger08]

The weakest possible federal government which still maintains the union. Read the Constitution.