CDZ We Need an Honest Debate about Federalism

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,583
Points
280
We are all aware of the widening liberal/conservative political divisions in our country. Because many of these divisions are viewed as moral or ethical issues, compromise does not seem to offer an acceptable means of resolution. On the other hand, unending conflict where one side seeks to impose its will on the other side will inevitably lead to negative consequences for all.

Is it not time to consider local self determination as a means towards more harmonious coexistence? Can't we agree to disagree on certain issues and allow the various States to determine their own preferences? While there are certain clearly delineated Constitutional requirements which must be met, why must so many other issues be decided at the national level and applied to every State? Just as they are able to decide whether to have income, sales an/or property taxes, why should they not be able to make decisions about abortion, capital punishment, welfare, health care and similar issues? People can (and do) move from one State to another if they find the determination of these issues too onerous.

Do we really want an imposed uniformity throughout our country? Do we want the Federal government making all of those decisions? Are we willing to accept the results when the "other side" is in charge? Is the power to control others that beguiling? Shouldn't we pause and consider where this is leading us?
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
59,242
Reaction score
17,159
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, where our inalienable rights as American citizens are immune from attack from the states and local jurisdictions.
 
OP
J

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,583
Points
280
Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, where our inalienable rights as American citizens are immune from attack from the states and local jurisdictions.
Nice speech, but lacking in substance. We have all read the Declaration of Independence and are familiar with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What does that have to do with Federalism?
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
Is it not time to consider local self determination as a means towards more harmonious coexistence? Can't we agree to disagree on certain issues and allow the various States to determine their own preferences?
Sounds like you are trying to justify another separatist movement that resulted in the civil war.
 
OP
J

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,583
Points
280
Is it not time to consider local self determination as a means towards more harmonious coexistence? Can't we agree to disagree on certain issues and allow the various States to determine their own preferences?
Sounds like you are trying to justify another separatist movement that resulted in the civil war.
Try again.
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
Is it not time to consider local self determination as a means towards more harmonious coexistence? Can't we agree to disagree on certain issues and allow the various States to determine their own preferences?
Sounds like you are trying to justify another separatist movement that resulted in the civil war.
Try again.
Thanks for admitting that you cannot defend your inane OP.
 

LoneLaugher

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2011
Messages
61,304
Reaction score
9,443
Points
2,040
Location
Inside Mac's Head
.

The Left can't have its Euro-social democracy with federalism, so any attempts in that direction will be met with great opposition energy.

.
Hello! Care to elaborate on that pile of shit?

This place is an Ameri-social democracy. Always has been. To be liberal is to be patriotic.
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
.

The Left can't have its Euro-social democracy with federalism, so any attempts in that direction will be met with great opposition energy.

.
The USA is nowhere near a "Euro-social democracy" and it won't ever be either. Way too much special interest money controls Congress for that to ever happen.
 
OP
J

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,583
Points
280
The USA is nowhere near a "Euro-social democracy" and it won't ever be either. Way too much special interest money controls Congress for that to ever happen.
The question is: Do want the USA to become a "Euro-social democracy?" [YES or NO]
(If NO, please explain why not.)

Are you intellectually honest enough to answer this question?
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
The USA is nowhere near a "Euro-social democracy" and it won't ever be either. Way too much special interest money controls Congress for that to ever happen.
The question is: Do want the USA to become a "Euro-social democracy?" [YES or NO]
(If NO, please explain why not.)

Are you intellectually honest enough to answer this question?
No.

There is a 3rd alternative that is a better option IMO.
 

Derideo_Te

Je Suis Charlie
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,461
Reaction score
7,961
Points
360
The question is: Do want the USA to become a "Euro-social democracy?" [YES or NO]
(If NO, please explain why not.)
No.

There is a 3rd alternative that is a better option IMO.
Please explain your better option.
Extreme socialism is equally as bad as extreme capitalism AKA Libertarianism. Both end up destroying society but both are essential aspects of a civilized nation. So the secret is to leverage the best of both while preventing the worst aspects from causing harm.

The 3rd alternative is essentially a compromise where neither overrides the other. They are "co-equal" if you prefer. The demands of socialism cannot harm the ability of capitalism to thrive and capitalism cannot thrive at the expense of We the People either.

The balance will never be exactly equal but as long as it stays within bounds then it is a feasible alternative to the extremism of the alternatives IMO.
 
OP
J

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,583
Points
280
Extreme socialism is equally as bad as extreme capitalism AKA Libertarianism. Both end up destroying society but both are essential aspects of a civilized nation. So the secret is to leverage the best of both while preventing the worst aspects from causing harm.

The 3rd alternative is essentially a compromise where neither overrides the other. They are "co-equal" if you prefer. The demands of socialism cannot harm the ability of capitalism to thrive and capitalism cannot thrive at the expense of We the People either.

The balance will never be exactly equal but as long as it stays within bounds then it is a feasible alternative to the extremism of the alternatives IMO.
LOL, running for office? Where does the U.S. fit in?
 

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
7,238
Reaction score
746
Points
190
We are all aware of the widening liberal/conservative political divisions in our country. Because many of these divisions are viewed as moral or ethical issues, compromise does not seem to offer an acceptable means of resolution. On the other hand, unending conflict where one side seeks to impose its will on the other side will inevitably lead to negative consequences for all.

Is it not time to consider local self determination as a means towards more harmonious coexistence? Can't we agree to disagree on certain issues and allow the various States to determine their own preferences? While there are certain clearly delineated Constitutional requirements which must be met, why must so many other issues be decided at the national level and applied to every State? Just as they are able to decide whether to have income, sales an/or property taxes, why should they not be able to make decisions about abortion, capital punishment, welfare, health care and similar issues? People can (and do) move from one State to another if they find the determination of these issues too onerous.

Do we really want an imposed uniformity throughout our country? Do we want the Federal government making all of those decisions? Are we willing to accept the results when the "other side" is in charge? Is the power to control others that beguiling? Shouldn't we pause and consider where this is leading us?
I would say just the opposite. What we need is more central control. People can leave the country if they find these issues too onerous as well as leave a state. So yes, when it comes to important issue, I would like to see uniformity imposed.
 

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
7,238
Reaction score
746
Points
190
Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, where our inalienable rights as American citizens are immune from attack from the states and local jurisdictions.
Nice speech, but lacking in substance. We have all read the Declaration of Independence and are familiar with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What does that have to do with Federalism?
Nothing. It also has nothing to do with state and local governments.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top