Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

And the pretend lawya says what?



You don't know jack.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Although it is your thread, I'd suggest that the query had a more American flavor if posed as a question of the intent of our Founders.

This nation was designed with a particular relationship between federal, 'centralized,' and the sovereign entities, the states.

The Constitution is very clear as to which functions should be the province of each. And many today believe that a reevaluation of that relationship is in order.

"Before one misreads the intentions of the Founders as envisioning a great and powerful central government, consider James Madison’s writing of Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39

Yet you cite no relevant case law in support, meaning this is subjective opinion, noting more, and incorrect.

The fact is both a strong Federal government and anti-Federalism were in play during the Foundation Era, both advocated by the Framers of either camp.

The issue was resolved in favor of Federalism by the Supreme Court in two landmark cases: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The myth of ‘states’ rights’ was finally laid to rest in Cooper v Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958), along with the fallacy of ‘decentralized government,' where the Court affirmed Federal supremacy per Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What's that make the Civil War?

Un-Constitutional.

 

[IndependntLogic]

So basically you just want somebody to come in here and try to defend tribal societies in Africa, because there are no case studies when the trend of the 20th and 21st-centuries has been a rush to the super-state.

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...

If the Ukraine is an example of "decentralized" government then I'm a penguin.

The Ukraine is most definitely an example of little in the way of government regs on corps. And u r not a penguin!

 

[IndependntLogic]

So basically you just want somebody to come in here and try to defend tribal societies in Africa, because there are no case studies when the trend of the 20th and 21st-centuries has been a rush to the super-state.

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...

Why don't you take you're passive-aggressive B.S. elsewhere? You come of with this gee wiz, you guys are so nice here and then pull this crap.

Hmmm. Insults, whining and never even attempts to address the topic. Must be.Soggy posting again...

 

[Oddball]

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...

Why don't you take you're passive-aggressive B.S. elsewhere? You come of with this gee wiz, you guys are so nice here and then pull this crap.

Hmmm. Insults, whining and never even attempts to address the topic. Must be.Soggy posting again...

You're the condescending prick who started up with the "let's dumb this down" bullshit.

Seriously, get the fuck over yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

I thought we settled this in the Civil War?

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

 

[IndependntLogic]

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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although it is your thread, I'd suggest that the query had a more American flavor if posed as a question of the intent of our Founders.

This nation was designed with a particular relationship between federal, 'centralized,' and the sovereign entities, the states.

The Constitution is very clear as to which functions should be the province of each. And many today believe that a reevaluation of that relationship is in order.

"Before one misreads the intentions of the Founders as envisioning a great and powerful central government, consider James Madison’s writing of Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39

Yet you cite no relevant case law in support, meaning this is subjective opinion, noting more, and incorrect.

The fact is both a strong Federal government and anti-Federalism were in play during the Foundation Era, both advocated by the Framers of either camp.

The issue was resolved in favor of Federalism by the Supreme Court in two landmark cases: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The myth of ‘states’ rights’ was finally laid to rest in Cooper v Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958), along with the fallacy of ‘decentralized government,' where the Court affirmed Federal supremacy per Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What's that make the Civil War?

Un-Constitutional.

Answered in post #20.

It becomes so tiresome to find our ersatz Roscoe Pound-law buffs who conveniently forget that the Constitution is the law of the land.

 

[bripat9643]

What's that make the Civil War?

Un-Constitutional.

That's certainly true enough. Lincoln wiped his ass on the Constitution. Lincoln scholars even admit it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

It depends on your perception of centralized government.
I think you've mixed terms.
Centralized or federal government is in the case of the US, guided by the US Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the States or the People. Pretty simple.
I think what you are referring to is "Central Planning". This is where the central government essentially controls all industry, commerce and holds all wealth for redistribution AFTER keeping what it chooses. In nations where central planning is in effect, government is deeply involved in all aspects of everyday life. There is no Liberty. The people are not citizens per se. They are "subjects".

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Welcome to the board.

Although it is your thread, I'd suggest that the query had a more American flavor if posed as a question of the intent of our Founders.

This nation was designed with a particular relationship between federal, 'centralized,' and the sovereign entities, the states.

The Constitution is very clear as to which functions should be the province of each. And many today believe that a reevaluation of that relationship is in order.

"Before one misreads the intentions of the Founders as envisioning a great and powerful central government, consider James Madison’s writing of Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39

The nation was founded as a decentralized government for a reason. The country was spread over a thousand miles. It took weeks to get from one area to another. There were no roads, no communication, no way for a centralized government to work

The founding fathers also realized that things would not be the same forever. They provided a governmental framework and realized that the country would evolve and mature as it grew

 

[tonystewart1]

Although it is your thread, I'd suggest that the query had a more American flavor if posed as a question of the intent of our Founders.

This nation was designed with a particular relationship between federal, 'centralized,' and the sovereign entities, the states.

The Constitution is very clear as to which functions should be the province of each. And many today believe that a reevaluation of that relationship is in order.

"Before one misreads the intentions of the Founders as envisioning a great and powerful central government, consider James Madison’s writing of Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39

Yet you cite no relevant case law in support, meaning this is subjective opinion, noting more, and incorrect.

The fact is both a strong Federal government and anti-Federalism were in play during the Foundation Era, both advocated by the Framers of either camp.

The issue was resolved in favor of Federalism by the Supreme Court in two landmark cases: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The myth of ‘states’ rights’ was finally laid to rest in Cooper v Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958), along with the fallacy of ‘decentralized government,' where the Court affirmed Federal supremacy per Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What's that make the Civil War?

Un-Constitutional.

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

What do you mean by the myth of states rights? The constitution and the framers gave the states right that today the federal govt ignores. The EPA comes to mind. They set policy for industry that does not cover interstate commerce. Where in the Constitiution does the feds have the power over intrastate commerce?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Welcome to the board.

Although it is your thread, I'd suggest that the query had a more American flavor if posed as a question of the intent of our Founders.

This nation was designed with a particular relationship between federal, 'centralized,' and the sovereign entities, the states.

The Constitution is very clear as to which functions should be the province of each. And many today believe that a reevaluation of that relationship is in order.

"Before one misreads the intentions of the Founders as envisioning a great and powerful central government, consider James Madison’s writing of Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” The Avalon Project : Federalist No 39

The nation was founded as a decentralized government for a reason. The country was spread over a thousand miles. It took weeks to get from one area to another. There were no roads, no communication, no way for a centralized government to work

The founding fathers also realized that things would not be the same forever. They provided a governmental framework and realized that the country would evolve and mature as it grew

My point was not that "The nation was founded as a decentralized government."

Rather that it was based on federalism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Um, there was that phrase in there: "Modern History".

I mean sure okay. When there were 100 miles of land for every citizen, no such thing as toxic waste, no stock market, no internet, no nukes, no lobbyists, no unions, no police, no cars, no planes....
um yeah, it was different. Gee. There's a shocker.

But there are a LOT of countries with little or no centralized government in the world right now, and there are tons of examples if we go back say, 40 years. So which one of those countries was or is proving your point?

So basically you just want somebody to come in here and try to defend tribal societies in Africa, because there are no case studies when the trend of the 20th and 21st-centuries has been a rush to the super-state.

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?

 

[Oddball]

So let's see. A decentralized government is the panacea to all woes

Strawman much?

and yet, according to its proponents, not one nation of people anywhere in the world seems to want one or effectively use one?

It was already pointed out that America had one for more than 150 years....Is English a second a second language for you?

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?

How about America, before the onset progressive era, Captain Strawman?

 

[ShackledNation]

Where has it worked? I suggest you open a history book. As for Africa, Libyans are not revolting against a limited decentralized government.

Hitler said himself that he hated decentralized federalist systems. Why? Because they would make it difficult to consolidate power. Dictatorship arises under central authority. For a modern example, look at North Korea.

Please show me a specific example of decentralized government in modern history, and how decentralization is the cause and not some other factor.

So you got nothing. Not one example of a decentralized government working out well for the people in the last 40 years. Okay.

History didn't start 40 years ago. I can't even think of any decentralized government aside from scattered African tribes. The 20th century has been a century of consolidation of power by government and centralization, so of course few examples of decentralization will be present. Before the US became a constitutional republic there were no examples 40 years prior of successful constitutional republics. Does that mean we should have let monarchs rule us like the rest of the world, simply because that is what everyone else was doing?

An example? Sure. I lived in The Ukraine. Very little government there. Almost zero regs on corps, the envirnoment etc... Although I had a blast (for other reasons), I decided to move back to the good ol' USA.
The fact that there was no centralized government and very little regulation is definitely known to be cause of a lot of their problems. Are there other factors? Only a complete moron would say that an entire nation's problems were all due to one factor. So yes Captain Obvious, there are other factors that contribute to their problems. But the fact remains that Ukrainians know that many of their problems are directly attributable to the lack of government.

Ukraine an example of a country with a small decentralized government? What a joke. According to the Freedom Index, Ukraine is one of the least economically free countries in the entire world, placing 164th in the worst category of "repressed."
Ukraine information on economic freedom | Facts, data, analysis, charts and more

Ukraine also does not have a federal system of dividing power among regions. I don't know where you are getting the idea that it represents the epitome of decentralization.

So your turn. Instead of the obvious dodges (You went with Hitler and NK? Really? So predictible. You might as well have been a Lib discussing the GOP ...), where are these utopian societies of regulatis non gratis? There are at least a dozen countries that have very little, if any government in the world. Which ones are the shining bastions of what your idiology will achieve for America?
Prediction? Dodge the question again. More ridiculous projections (always love a nice Hitler reference though), change the subject again or Cut & Run...

How is referencing two of the most centralized powers in modern history in a discussion about centralization vs. decentralization a dodge in any way? You are bashing decentralized government, so I am showing you that the arguably two most dictatorial regimes in the history of the world were characterized by heavy centralization, not decentralization.

You are making the claim that decentralization is a bad idea. In order to support it, you must provide examples of decentralized countries that have done poorly. You have not. Ukraine was your example, but Ukraine is one of the least free and centralized powers in the world. It has absolutely no federal system, and as a former communist state it still has minimal economic freedom. Prior to that you loosely mentioned Africa with no specific reference to any particular country.

And then you have the nerve to act as if I am dodging your arguments? Please. You have no argument, only unsupported assumptions and empty platitudes.

 

[Woyzeck]

America, from the founding up until the onset of the progressive era.

What's that make the Civil War?

Very decentralized.

Even though Lincoln created America's original industrial army, the men for it still came form the militias of the several states...Ditto the Confederacy.

You missed my point. If government was working, why was there a civil war then?

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

I'm not asking for a "decentralized government" when I ask that existing Federal Government powers be cut. I, like the Founding Fathers understand that a centralized government is needed to provide for a common defense and to deal with foreign issues representing our interests. I do not believe however that the Federal Government should be involved in areas such as our schools. Could someone explain to me why it is we have a Department of Education with a budget of 70 billion dollars? We managed to somehow survive quite admirably from 1776 until 1979 without one. Education was the province of local governments. So are you telling me that our education system has improved over the past thirty years? Really? From where I'm sitting it sure looks like it's gone to shit. So why don't we scrap the Department of Education and save ourselves a boatload of cash?

 

[Chris]

Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

Somalia?

No....wait.....

 

[ShackledNation]

Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

Somalia?

No....wait.....

Decentralized government is not the same as no government at all. It means power is divided between states and localities so the central government cannot control everything.