Federal Government Shutdown

[Airyaman]

When you speak of Denmark you can compare it, population wise, to Wisconsin. Germany is like California, New York, and Texas. People sometimes fail to realize that central government is woefully inefficient for a country our size, and things would be much better if states had more power.

Reality called, it needs your attention and it was saying something about the house of congress and history of senatorial deadlocks that and something about how this really would be more efficient if you gave even more power to states that have unequal economic, populace, and social standings.

What has become reality is not what was intended when the laws of this country were set up, so you are using reality to judge things now against what they might have been if laws had been followed. Yeah, pie in the sky, I know, but that's the problem when you make rules and then fail to live by them.

If there was a state that had many of the things you desire with a central government that stayed within its constitutional limits, then you could just move to that state and not to another country across the world. That is the way it should work, but instead we are forcing everyone to stick the square peg in the round hole.

Please tell me more about these constitutional limits and why we should cling so heavily to them other than merely stating that it's what was intended.

Because if we did, central government would be less invasive and a whole helluva lot smaller. A constitutional government would also require less tax payer money, obviously.

Here's how you do it properly: hold the fed to their constitution limits, and if you don't like the constitution as is, amend it instead of mostly ignoring it.

I live in the rural south (I'll wait on the insults for that one), so how many of us want to live here might not agree with how you would like to live.

And many other states might trample all over yours if given more individual power.

"Might" is the operative word here.

See, I think you're arguing for self-governance of the states, but how does that translate to their relations with one another? You are stating that each state should be beholden only to itself, free to fuck over certain members of its inhabitants. What if how one state behaves starts causing conflicts with others? Would the federal government then step in to alleviate the conflict? But then, wouldn't that just be the government once again telling states what they can and cannot do? What if those conflicts start leading to boycotts of different states? Or even armed conflict? You're asking for less order, more chaos, which can and in all likelihood will lead to a huge mess of problems that will destabilize the nation as a whole. This is not conjecture; this is just human nature. There's a reason anarchy would not work for this very reason and while I am not saying you are advocating anarchy, I AM saying that is a step in that general direction; less unity, more individuality. The self means more than the whole, all because you are mad about, what, PPACA or something or the congressional shutdown? What is the federal government doing that is so thoroughly chapping your ass that you feel your state and every other state should become more self-governing? I would like to hear the reasoning for this because honestly, to me, it just doesn't make any sense.

This is where people lose it. You are talking about extremes here as the default position. There is no idea of "self governance" in that states can do as they please, this is not the wild west, there is still to be central government oversight. Just no where near the levels we see today. its very difficult to roll things back, but it does not appear that the present approach is working well.

People say the Mass care is well like and successful. Bravo, state power. That is how health care should be approached instead of at a national level with 314 million people across fifty states and thousands of cities and towns.

OK, now I actually see your reasoning and where you're coming from, and of course it's with the PPACA. I'm not going to run on about the PPACA again, I've spoken enough about it, but I will say that this is a seriously weak, short-sighted, and narrow-minded reason for this kind of political stance. If there's other reasons, of course, feel free to tell me of them and I'll be willing to hear you out, though I cannot promise I will agree with any of them.

The PPACA is just another symptom of the overall condition. Drug laws are another, as are marriage laws, education, etc. None of these things should, imo, have federal involvement, at least not to present levels.

As an example, what if I enjoyed a doobie on the weekends? If I was caught with one where I live, I might be arrested and then imprisoned, whereas if I lived in Colorado...well, you get the picture. However, that dope smoker in CO is still breaking federal drug law so in theory, they could still face federal imprisonment. Not likely to happen, but its still the way the laws presently work.

Just a start...