Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

[ScienceRocks]

Read up on Greece in the 4th century BC to find your answer

 

[IndependntLogic]

Nothing in that "I'm-the-smartest-dicksmoker-in-the-room" OP of your that says anything about the last 40 years.....Seriously weak attempt at moving the goalposts.

And while I'm at it, cars, jet airplanes, crack cocaine or whatever trapping of the modern world you care to cite are entirely irrelevant to the fact that the federal republic was set up to address matters of national defense abroad, and aggression and fraud at home...It wasn't designed to dictate to me what kind of toilet I may or may not install in my home or nag me about wearing my seat belt.

I agree with you.

 

[code1211]

I see this all the time. Tea Partiers and Libertarians screaming about less government, or taking away every single power from the Fed that isn't specifically defined (as per their personal interpretation, that is).

After listening to you guys, asking lots of questions, you've made a great case!
Apparently, you're not all the hostile whackjobs shown on MSNBC!

So while I can appreciate saving $$$ by eliminating duplication, we seem to diverge when it comes to a lot of major agencies. I am former military intel so there is no way in hell you are going to convince me that we need to dump the CIA. Consolidate DHS, FBI, NSA & CIA? Sure okay. Eliminate? Nope.
I've already stated my reasons why I would also keep the following: FAA, USDA, NRC, EPA etc...

All warmed up? Good! Takes me long enough to get to the danm point, doesnt it? Sorry. So I've been to and lived in countries all over the world, that had little centralized government. What did I see? Almost no middle class and usually (dont know why there's a correlation) higher crime rates and a rather overt corporatacry that was pretty oppressive and destructive.
So where are your examples of decentralized government working these miraculous wonders for the citizenry? Seems to me, a dozen countries in Africa would be HQ for every major corp in the world! After all, they don't have that pesky government thing goin on!
So examples of where in modern history has what you want, worked in the long term or even at all?

You seem to be making two separate charges:
1. Benefits to the citizenry.
2. Strength of the nation.

I realize that strength is required to protect the citizens, but only to a point.

One of the prorities of the Founders was to bring the seat of government closer to the governed. That is why they limited Federal Powers and left all powers except those enumerated to the states and to the people. They were mindful of exactly the dichotomy you present: Individual liberty and protection from outside force of arms.

A strong Central Government is best represented by a dictatorship or a monarchy with divine rights. I would assume that you are not endorsing Caligula or Louis XVI.

Conservatives of my ilk are not endorsing anarchy, so your views and mine play out this debate in the mid ground of political thinking.

All of that said, the Federal Government is out of control. In the midst of this sudden slide into bankruptcy, we witnessed the Big 0 initiating a new agency to be headed by the jeopardy winner. Seriously? Was there not already an agency that could have performed that task? The Consumer Financial Protection Beaureau? RU Kidding me? C'mon... This is an utter waste of money, time, effort and energy. A political game move. Shuffle board while the ship is sinking.

Need more examples? you mentioned the EPA. The Big 0's strangulation of business was not happening fast enough for him. Seemed to be pretty quick to me, but he needed more speed. The Congress, which cannot pass a budget (a thing he never makes note of) also cannot pass Environmental regulation. To circumvent this, he has the agency illegally create regulation not voted on by Congress and then enforces them, again illegally, by the administative branch.

This is a strong, centralized government that is acting in violation of the spirit and letter of the law to accomplish the desires and caprices of the MAN, not the laws, which head the government.

So we play in the mid ground. We had been a nation of laws. We are becomeing a nation of men. When we drift to the end of the spectrum that allows our Governors to Govern men outside the spirit and the letter of the law, we are nearing the ground of dictatorship and monarchy.

The Libs complained and are still complaining about W and the Cons are complaining about the Big 0. I complain about both.

Going to war without Congressional permission is a big deal. Well, not so much anymore. Today our wars should be sponsored by Nike: Just Do It.

Hitler combined the offices of President and Chancellor and burned the Riechstag. Because the economy was vastly improved, the standing of Germany among nations was restored and the people who were starving were now happy, they let it go.

How far from that are we today? Thankfully, the Big 0 is an inept boob without a clue. He can't do this. What if we get another Clinton or Reagan in office with a huge rise in the economy, renewed respect abroad and an obstnate, do-nothing Congress? What if that guy, with all of the growth in the Centralized powers you endorse is a Hitler clone?

We need to be a nation of laws that protect our liberties and not a nation of men that use laws to attack them. When our leaders rise above the law, our citizens are crushed beneath them.

If you're still reading this, my apologies.

 

[code1211]

I see this all the time. Tea Partiers and Libertarians screaming about less government, or taking away every single power from the Fed that isn't specifically defined (as per their personal interpretation, that is).

After listening to you guys, asking lots of questions, you've made a great case!
Apparently, you're not all the hostile whackjobs shown on MSNBC!

So while I can appreciate saving $$$ by eliminating duplication, we seem to diverge when it comes to a lot of major agencies. I am former military intel so there is no way in hell you are going to convince me that we need to dump the CIA. Consolidate DHS, FBI, NSA & CIA? Sure okay. Eliminate? Nope.
I've already stated my reasons why I would also keep the following: FAA, USDA, NRC, EPA etc...

All warmed up? Good! Takes me long enough to get to the danm point, doesnt it? Sorry. So I've been to and lived in countries all over the world, that had little centralized government. What did I see? Almost no middle class and usually (dont know why there's a correlation) higher crime rates and a rather overt corporatacry that was pretty oppressive and destructive.
So where are your examples of decentralized government working these miraculous wonders for the citizenry? Seems to me, a dozen countries in Africa would be HQ for every major corp in the world! After all, they don't have that pesky government thing goin on!
So examples of where in modern history has what you want, worked in the long term or even at all?

The pretend constitutionalists like to forget that we're not set up for de-centralized government. if we were, we'd still be living under the articles of confederation.

One might wonder how and why that has happened. The constitution is set up for de-centralized government.

 

[Ravi]

Don't give a flying fuck about what the judicial oligarchs and tyrants say....The intent is clear.

Except when they judge to your satisfaction, eh, dud?

 

[code1211]

I thought we settled this in the Civil War?

Guess what? We can't go back and we wouldn't want to

We need to go back a little. My generation had young men dying in a pointless and inconsequential war in Viet Nam because the Pesident and the Military had a hard on they wanted to make sure that everyone in the world could see.

The Bush boys decided that the Middle East needed some tough love and sent our youth to that meat grinder.

This, my friends, is BS.

Going to war needs to be done through an act of Congress, not through a back door.

We abandon our rights at our peril. Is n't it time we straightened our backs a little and quit bowing to our masters who ignor our laws?

 

[code1211]

So let's see. A decentralized government is the panacea to all woes and yet, according to its proponents, not one nation of people anywhere in the world seems to want one or effectively use one? Curious. Fine. Let's make it easier for.you guys. Which country with little or no federal regulations on corporations is what you want for America? I remember when I lived in Mexico, this was literally no enforcement of environmental regs and corps were left to "regulate themselves" - until so much toxic waste made its way up the Pacific Coast that Bush Sr. threw down the gauntlet. Then they started enforcing those darn Fed Regs in the north, anyway. So you want that for us? If not, which country would be a good example for your cause?

Again, a false choice.

Little or no vs. way too much is not where the argument is occurring.

Laws passed by Congress vs. regulations contrived by overzealous beaurocrats is the argument.

Please present reality and justify the destruction of family wealth and small businesses business in favor of snail darters.

 

[code1211]

Ah, the predictible. When you ass is owned on a topic or issue, project something onto the other debater.

No. Let me dumb this down. Where has less government worked in the last 40 years - or is working now? There are dozens of countries in existence now with almost no corporate regualtion etc... which ones exemplify what you want for America?
Hell, I even gave you a free example with the Ukraine! If you want, you can start with why you would like us to be like them...

"Less government" Interesting you used that term.
There is good government and bad government.
What we conservatives refer to as "less government" is "less intrusive and expensive".
Honest people and good business people want ot be left alone. We do not want overbearing and expensive government. You do know to what I refer. We object to overstuffed, over staffed bureaucratic government.
Regulation is good. It works. It keeps people and business honest. What we don't need is a government that sometimes arbitrarily enforces rules on one while ignoring another.
For example.....Should the federal government have the right to shut down an entire food processing plant because an employee got the ear of some local bureaucrat in the Dept of Agriculture office who then sent an inspector to the plant and happened to see a couple of workers not wearing the government mandated safety gloves, but gloves that were more comfortable and worked better than the OSHA standard gloves? Is this the kind of government you believe to be the best way to go? One size fits all? No common sense?
IS it your assertion that the EPA can stop an entire project well under way because some enviro wacko discovered a rare Mussel living in a creek that is less than 4 feet wide that the government just happened to label as "threatened"....Never mind the fact that this particular creature is known to exist in hundreds of creeks in the same area?
Is this ok with you?

Fist let's start with your assumptions. You do not know what being a good parent is. Is it rather presumptuous for me to say that? Of course. You say that I don't know what it is to want a less intrusive government? I own a business. I know all about intrusive government. So tell you what. I won't assume you don't things until you tell me so. There is in fact much I didn't know until coming here. Like how reasonable many Tea Partiers, Libertarians etc... are, for example. Obviously that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything. Like this issue.

So to address your point. I've lived in over a dozen countries and traveled to many more. Two things you can always count on people complaining about are taxes and government. About the only exceptions I can think of are are Switzerland and people from Scandinavia always seem pretty happy with their governments.
Other than that? No one. The complaints almost always fall into one of three categories:

My government is corrupt!

or

My government is too intrusive!

or

Both of the above.

Now our govenment is far from corruption free but compared to say Columbia, Slovakia or Russia? Phew! Glad we have what we have! However, unlike Ron Paul, I would love to see PACs and Lobbyists have to disclose very penny passed anywhere. And yes of course, it sure could use some improving.
As far as intrusive. I own a business and sometimes government regs are a real pain in the buttocks. But I don't know. I hire who I want to hire, have moved my company a couple times, fire people when they deserve to be fired, do business with whomever I want, wherever I want, all over the world etc...
I've never walked a city street and had a cop ask me for my papers here (I'm not Hispanic) but that's definitely happened overseas. No big deal, you just give them a photo copy of your passport and the equivalent of a few American dollars and then go about your way. But here, unless you're a Hispanic in AZ, the government generally doesn't intrude.I go on the internet and say "Obama sucks!" on a regualr basis. No one has shown up at my door. Even more importantly, I am just finishing a novel (on page 500 - down to the wire - Phew!) and have researched Amonium Nitrate Fuel Oil preparation, Nuclear power plant security and vulnerabilities, HEU sources and other things that I'm SURE the Fed has peeked at. Still no one at the door. No intrusion.
So where is all this intrustion? Why do you feel so oppressed? I don't. I'm happy here!

Just my two cents...

Agreed, for the most part, but the referecnce to AZ left out the major part of the law, which is always left out by those who argue against it: The law depends on first having the law broken or a reasonable suspiscion of same like a traffic stop.

This works exactly the same as drunk driving. Run a red light, be stopped, have liquor on your breath and the are subjected to a breathalizer. Also Hispanic and unable to speak English? Then check your citizenship.

 

[code1211]

The SCOTUS is notorious for legislating from the bench in complete disregard to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitutions means, it interprets the Founding Document per the rule of law and doctrine of judicial review. See: Marbury v Madison (1803). There is consequently no such thing as ‘legislating from the bench.’

What do you mean by the myth of states rights?

I don’t ‘mean’ anything, I merely cite the case law: it was the original intent of the Framers that Federal law be supreme, see the case citations in post #22.



No, the government functions as originally intended, as interpreted by the Supreme Court per Marbury.

The EPA comes to mind. They set policy for industry that does not cover interstate commerce.

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court upheld as Constitutional Congress’ authorization of the EPA to address the issue of greenhouse gases.

Where in the Constitiution does the feds have the power over intrastate commerce?

Here:

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941)

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond (1949)

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964)

Hicklin v. Orbeck (1978)

The next move for you or anyone else on the right is to cite case law in support of your interpretation of the Constitution.

Otherwise it's only meaningless, subjective opinion – fun and entertaining, perhaps, but meaningless nonetheless.

You are dreaming. The Constitution is pretty clear that only cetain and enumerated powers are reserved to the Feds and that EVERYTHING else is reserved to the states or to the people. The very fact that Marbury v Madison was tried is evidence of this. Marbury CHANGED the intent of the document.

The Civil Rights battles fought out in the courts illustrate perfectly the writing of law from the bench. Using the same Constitution, Dred Scot, Plessey v Furgeson and Brown v Board of Education were all rendered. I don't know of a better or more clear evidence that we have an activist Supreme Court.

Without an activist Supreme Court, the recognition of slaves as men and therfore free men would have bee made in 1789 and the Civil war would have been fought under Washington, not Lincoln.

 

[code1211]

Decentralized government has worked just as good as tax cuts have at creating jobs.

Nice non sequitur.

America went from quite literally nothing to the world's pre-eminent economic superpower in a span of but 150 years...But decentralized gubmint doesn't work.

I would argue that the transition took place in the time span between 1942 and 1943.

It was then that the British witnessed for the first time modern history a different country with more men under arms than they and that the Dollar moved from a parochial currency to the world's currency.

This was unquestionably the most peaceful passage of power from one state to another in history. One ally passing the baton as it were to another which was literally being schooled within its own borders.

 

[Oddball]

Decentralized government has worked just as good as tax cuts have at creating jobs.

Nice non sequitur.

America went from quite literally nothing to the world's pre-eminent economic superpower in a span of but 150 years...But decentralized gubmint doesn't work.

I would argue that the transition took place in the time span between 1942 and 1943.

It was then that the British witnessed for the first time modern history a different country with more men under arms than they and that the Dollar moved from a parochial currency to the world's currency.

This was unquestionably the most peaceful passage of power from one state to another in history. One ally passing the baton as it were to another which was literally being schooled within its own borders.

America smoked the globe, economically speaking, during the industrial revolution....Such a massive increase in economic production that it set the stage for the progressives to come in and loot it, for their war mongering and consolidation of political power.

 

[rdean]

We beat the world's preeminent military under the decentralized government established by the Articles of Confederation. Certainly we had help from France, and wars are of course devastating in just about every way possible, but it seemed to work out pretty good all things considered. They even kept the Articles until the monarchists forced the Constitution on us.

Yea, because the military was "decentralized". Step out of the fantasy. In the real world, the best government is a combination of the two. Like Tax cuts and revenue. Like "compromise". Simple things Republicans simply don't understand.

 

[Woyzeck]

Wrong...America was top dog before the progressives laid their greedy war mongering little mitts on it.

We were top dog in the nineteenth century? The British will be most surprised.

So you think we were weak and impoverished until the progressives took over and suddenly we were a super power?

You're simply an historical ignoramus.

Wow that's exactly what I said. Perhaps you'd like to actually read my post and not shove words in my mouth.

 

[Woyzeck]

You're off your nut.

If an all-powerful centralized gubmint created prosperity, then Soviet Russia would've buried the world.

Yet America doesn't become the top dog until the twentieth century, and the Progressive Era is around the turn of the century. Which is when you're decentralized golden era ends.

So what did the progressives bring us? The great depression. Two world wars. the holocaust. Totalitarian governments all over the world. Mass starvation. Inflation. eugenics. Social Darwinism. Fascism. Massive government debt. A significant decrease in the growth rate of the economy.

Here are the facts: The United States grew to become the largest economy in the world under laizzes fair economics, and then the progressives took over. They didn't create the economy growth, the simply cashed in on it.

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

 

[code1211]

We beat the world's preeminent military under the decentralized government established by the Articles of Confederation. Certainly we had help from France, and wars are of course devastating in just about every way possible, but it seemed to work out pretty good all things considered. They even kept the Articles until the monarchists forced the Constitution on us.

Yea, because the military was "decentralized". Step out of the fantasy. In the real world, the best government is a combination of the two. Like Tax cuts and revenue. Like "compromise". Simple things Republicans simply don't understand.

In every case in the past, every one without any exception at any time in any case in any administration at any point in our history, when spending cuts are traded for tax increases, the tax increases happen now and the the spending cuts happen never.

It is not the Republicans who do not understand comprimise, it is the Democrats.

The Republicans agree to tax increases and spending cuts, but only half of the agreements ever occur.

That the Democrat party is offereing this again is obviously another in a chain of Bold Face LIES and should be treated as what it is: Merely a deception and a means to the end of raising taxes so the increased spending can continue.

The Republicans to a point and the TEA Party in full are asking for what we need: a good plan and a reliable partner to the people to stop the inept and corrupt thievery of our treasury by the snakes in DC.

 

[daveman]

Yet America doesn't become the top dog until the twentieth century, and the Progressive Era is around the turn of the century. Which is when you're decentralized golden era ends.

So what did the progressives bring us? The great depression. Two world wars. the holocaust. Totalitarian governments all over the world. Mass starvation. Inflation. eugenics. Social Darwinism. Fascism. Massive government debt. A significant decrease in the growth rate of the economy.

Here are the facts: The United States grew to become the largest economy in the world under laizzes fair economics, and then the progressives took over. They didn't create the economy growth, the simply cashed in on it.

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

The left has been running education for 40 years.

 

[Woyzeck]

So what did the progressives bring us? The great depression. Two world wars. the holocaust. Totalitarian governments all over the world. Mass starvation. Inflation. eugenics. Social Darwinism. Fascism. Massive government debt. A significant decrease in the growth rate of the economy.

Here are the facts: The United States grew to become the largest economy in the world under laizzes fair economics, and then the progressives took over. They didn't create the economy growth, the simply cashed in on it.

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

The left has been running education for 40 years.

I see why you guys complain about that, because Oddball doesn't seem to understand American history at all.

 

[daveman]

Here's the facts, we weren't number one until the twentieth century, until then it was the British until they wore themselves thin. You can bullshit all you want about progressives and blame them for everything that went wrong, but that doesn't change history.

I'm starting think maybe the rightwing has a point about the state of education...

The left has been running education for 40 years.

I see why you guys complain about that, because Oddball doesn't seem to understand American history at all.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. If it's good, it's liberal. If it's bad, it's conservative.

 

[Woyzeck]

The left has been running education for 40 years.

I see why you guys complain about that, because Oddball doesn't seem to understand American history at all.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. If it's good, it's liberal. If it's bad, it's conservative.

But I'm agreeing with you! Oddball's understanding of American history is proof that the liberal education system has failed.

 

[daveman]

I see why you guys complain about that, because Oddball doesn't seem to understand American history at all.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. If it's good, it's liberal. If it's bad, it's conservative.

But I'm agreeing with you! Oddball's understanding of American history is proof that the liberal education system has failed.

That's only if you believe his view of history is incorrect.

You had a public school education, right?