Where Had DeCentralized Government Actually Worked?

[Woyzeck]

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.

We became a superpower because the government became more centralized. If you not, your most hated period of centralization coincidences with the height of our power.

 

[Oddball]

You're off your nut.

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

 

[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.

 

[Oddball]

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

 

[IndependntLogic]

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

Strawman much?

My understanding is that a "strawman" is when a person bases their argument on the opposition having a position they don't actually have.So what? You're into a heavily centralized government? And you feel this applies to ALL Tea Partiers & Libertarians? Hmmm. Seems there are already plenty of both in this very thread who would argue otherwise.

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?

Awww. Oddball you're upset! No, English is not my second language. That would be Russian with Spanish as my third. Now since I actually started the thread, how was anything "already pointed out". "Already" as you used it, would imply beforehand. Hmmm. Is English a second language to 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?[/QUOTE]

LOL! Having feelings, are we? Awww. Poor little guy.
Wait, do you mean Army Captain or Navy Captain?!?!? Obviously I'd rather be a Navy captian because that's like a colonel in the army or Marines!
Okay um, I'm new to this and I realize that a lot of you get um, emotional and stuff. But unless you can guide me to a website entitled www.OddballSpeaksForTheTeaPartyandAllLibertarians.com, then I'm not sure you get to call this a strawman argument. Like I said, there are already folks arguing in favor of a more decentralized governement, where the states have any / all powers not defined in the USC. Guess what? I'm prreeetty sure they're not Liberals.

So look. Love the laughs you've provided
and your screen name is certainly fitting but unless you have something more than a tantrum to offer, I'm gonna go talk with the grown-ups now.

Hugs & Kisses Your New BFF!

(Hey everyone else... whatcha think? Was that snarky enough? I mean, I was going for a mix of snarky, some sarcasm and juust a bit of glib, patronizing along the lines of: "Hi. I see you've come into my thread whining like a little b1tch. Well, I poop on your ancestors" kind of a thing. So? Was I too nice? I think I was probably too nice. Oh well, maybe he'll replay with something equally stupid and whiny. That would be good.. )

 

[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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here is all of article 3 you point out which section give the bench power to legislate over intrastate commerce.

The answer is in post #43. If you disagree with the facts presented then cite case law overturning those rulings. Or state you reject in their entirety the doctrines of judicial review and the rule of law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here is all of article 3 you point out which section give the bench power to legislate over intrastate commerce.

The answer is in post #43. If you disagree with the facts presented then cite case law overturning those rulings. Or state you reject in their entirety the doctrines of judicial review and the rule of law.

Actually you are wrong. No case states the FedGov may regulate intrastate commerce. They get around this by showing that every example actually has an aspect of interstate commerce, which the gov't is allowed to regulate. Even stupid cases like Wickard and Raich rely on that reasoning.

 

[daveman]

Air polloutino crosses state lines and is therfore regualtable by the federal govt.

...and that means the government can mandate everyone buy health insurance from a private company.

 

[Oddball]

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.

When was the industrial revolution?

Which nation kicked the living snot out of every other during that time period?

 

[tonystewart1]

Here is all of article 3 you point out which section give the bench power to legislate over intrastate commerce.

The answer is in post #43. If you disagree with the facts presented then cite case law overturning those rulings. Or state you reject in their entirety the doctrines of judicial review and the rule of law.

And again I tell you that I am not going to state case law. Thats like asking the fox if he should be allowed to guard the hen house. Your precious case law is the problem in the first place. The SCOTUS does not and can not make law. Their rullings in this matter are flawed from the begining because their intrests are in making a stronger fed govt not intrepeting the constituion. If they interpreted the constituition like they where supposed to they would refuse to hear most cases brought to them because they have no jurisdiction. The only thing I will quote is the constitution.

 

[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.

When was the industrial revolution?

Which nation kicked the living snot out of every other during that time period?

Late 18th to 19th centuries. The British.

 

[Oddball]

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

Strawman much?

My understanding is that a "strawman" is when a person bases their argument on the opposition having a position they don't actually have.So what? You're into a heavily centralized government? And you feel this applies to ALL Tea Partiers & Libertarians? Hmmm. Seems there are already plenty of both in this very thread who would argue otherwise.

Your argument is a strawman because it presumes that your absurdly over-generalized statement "A decentralized government is the panacea to all woes" is an POV being invoked...Which it is not....That's your cognitive hallucination, pal.

Libertarians are the first people to tell you that perfection and Utopia are not options, therefore a panacea is also not possible.

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

Awww. Oddball you're upset! No, English is not my second language. That would be Russian with Spanish as my third. Now since I actually started the thread, how was anything "already pointed out". "Already" as you used it, would imply beforehand. Hmmm. Is English a second language to you?

Fact remains that the 150+ years of American history, prior to the progressive era, are that of a highly decentralized federal power...A time frame in which the nation rose from a borderline bankrupt fledgling republic to the world's leading economic powerhouse.

This is a historical fact that cannot be denied.

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?QUOTE]

LOL! Having feelings, are we? Awww. Poor little guy.
Wait, do you mean Army Captain or Navy Captain?!?!? Obviously I'd rather be a Navy captian because that's like a colonel in the army or Marines!
Okay um, I'm new to this and I realize that a lot of you get um, emotional and stuff. But unless you can guide me to a website entitled www.OddballSpeaksForTheTeaPartyandAllLibertarians.com, then I'm not sure you get to call this a strawman argument. Like I said, there are already folks arguing in favor of a more decentralized governement, where the states have any / all powers not defined in the USC. Guess what? I'm prreeetty sure they're not Liberals.

So look. Love the laughs you've provided
and your screen name is certainly fitting but unless you have something more than a tantrum to offer, I'm gonna go talk with the grown-ups now.

Hugs & Kisses Your New BFF!

(Hey everyone else... whatcha think? Was that snarky enough? I mean, I was going for a mix of snarky, some sarcasm and juust a bit of glib, patronizing along the lines of: "Hi. I see you've come into my thread whining like a little b1tch. Well, I poop on your ancestors" kind of a thing. So? Was I too nice? I think I was probably too nice. Oh well, maybe he'll replay with something equally stupid and whiny. That would be good.. )

More I'm-the-smartest-asshole-in-the-room condescension...Excellent.

Nobody said anything about NO regulations...Again, the strawman.

Moreover, your example of Mexico is one where they have regulations, but the bureaucrats choose not to enforce them...Another failure of your "logic".

When you decide to pull that broom out of your ass and do a little research into what real libertarians/classical liberals believe, rather than your grossly over-verbose text walls of strawmen, stereotypes, preconceived notions and smartest-dicksmoker-in-the-room snobbery, feel free to check back in.

Maybe you could start here: http://www1.chapman.edu/argyros/faculty/machan/libinonelesson.pdf

 

[IndependntLogic]

Strawman much?

My understanding is that a "strawman" is when a person bases their argument on the opposition having a position they don't actually have.So what? You're into a heavily centralized government? And you feel this applies to ALL Tea Partiers & Libertarians? Hmmm. Seems there are already plenty of both in this very thread who would argue otherwise.

Your argument is a strawman because it presumes that your absurdly over-generalized statement "A decentralized government is the panacea to all woes" is an POV being invoked...Which it is not....That's your cognitive hallucination, pal.

LOL! Damn dude, take some ex-lax or something. You about to burst my brutha! Yes, I used a generalization. So rather than get your little panties all wet and in a bunch, you might have just said "First off, we think that giving the states more power would be helpful" Which many people here were sooooo smart about, they were able to figure out without any clarification. As a matter of fact, one of them made a pretty good argument for this view. Obviously you can't understand the intent without someon to interpret it for you - like the USC

So let me dumb it down just for ya!

Clarification: Many Tea Partiers & Libertarians feel that taking much power away from the centralized, Federal government and transferring it to the states, would be helpful in solving many of our problems.

There. Feel all better now? Good! I like you and I don't want you to get upset. I enjoy your posts!

Libertarians are the first people to tell you that perfection and Utopia are not options, therefore a panacea is also not possible.

And you called me Captain Obvious! You definitely deserve to be Fleet Admiral Obvious!


Fact remains that the 150+ years of American history, prior to the progressive era, are that of a highly decentralized federal power...A time frame in which the nation rose from a borderline bankrupt fledgling republic to the world's leading economic powerhouse.

This is a historical fact that cannot be denied.

Wait. You mean the powers were decentralized during a time when communication of even a single idea took days to travel? Hmmm. Wonder why the need to have people govern locally might have been more necessary? (smart people can figure this one out)

(Hey everyone else... whatcha think? Was that snarky enough? I mean, I was going for a mix of snarky, some sarcasm and juust a bit of glib, patronizing along the lines of: "Hi. I see you've come into my thread whining like a little b1tch. Well, I poop on your ancestors" kind of a thing. So? Was I too nice? I think I was probably too nice. Oh well, maybe he'll replay with something equally stupid and whiny. That would be good.. )

More I'm-the-smartest-amazing-great-guy-in-the-room condescension...Excellent.

Well thank you thank you thank you but I couldn't have accomplished that without you being around as the comparison.

Nobody said anything about NO regulations...Again, the strawman.

Okay, Dumb it down for the oddball time again. Jeez. I'm going to have to use little words for you.
First, you obviously missed the fact that I refenced a couple countires where there are few regs or where they are simply not enforced. Now, those really, really smart people (That would be everyone else) were able to figure out that this did not mean "NO" regulation. Do you like have pictures of your home and car on a necklace so you don't get lost? Just askin...


Moreover, your example of Mexico is one where they have regulations, but the bureaucrats choose not to enforce them...Another failure of your "logic".

Again, see above and look at what the smart people were able to figure out...

When you decide to pull that broom out of your ass and do a little research into what real libertarians/classical liberals believe, rather than your grossly over-verbose text walls of strawmen, stereotypes, preconceived notions and smartest-dicksmoker-in-the-room snobbery, feel free to check back in.

[/url]

LOL! You're a funny little guy! Not too bright but always good for lots of laughs. Thanks for the giggles.

Even more hugs and Kisses!
Your New BFF

 

[Oddball]

And you're an arrogant horse's ass.....Great to mock, yet of little more use than that....Par for the course for people who try to define themselves in terms of what they are not, though.


BTW, the answer to your pedantic question is still; America, prior to the progressive era.

 

[IndependntLogic]

And you're an arrogant horse's ass.....Great to mock, yet of little more use than that....Par for the course for people who try to define themselves in terms of what they are not, though.


BTW, the answer to your pedantic question is still; America, prior to the progressive era.

Wow! Impressive! So the answer to which country has succeeded with a decentralized government in the last forty years, is uh, America before there were cars, phones, the Baby Boom etc... That is every bit as intelligent as I expected from you!

Well thanks for the laughs! Now that you have been properly spanked, you just run along...

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You forgot to cite case law in support of the above. Certainly you don’t expect anyone to take your word for it.

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.

Blaming the Holocaust on progressivism? Obviously there’s no point admonishing you to cite an authority on that.