Would Stronger State's Rights Lead to World Peace?

If the U.S. had stronger states rights would the rest of the world see us as less of a threat to it?

The more variety the U.S. has within it, the larger the melting pot of America becomes. By the Federal Government taking over states rights this variety is being bottlenecked by elected officials and big business. Both of which care little for the average person.

Going back to states rights would be viewed by Europe as a friendly move. It would make the U.S. more like the E.U. then before.

Are we a threat to the rest of the world because we are viewed as an Empire?

I think the answer is of course we are.

This might help to ease tensions between the U.S. and Russia/China and help to prevent another Arms Race between the countries hence saving both sides billions!

What do you think?






[edit on 9-5-2006 by Low Orbit]

I like how you made the distinction between Big Business and elected politicians. Really, they're one in the same now, since Big Business has all of the elected politicians bought and paid for in their pockets. Whenever they want something, they just slip money via "lobbying" to the representatives they want to influence, and then the vote is cast in favor of them. I'm sure that when you look at the voting history of the representatives, and compare that with the lobbying that took place before the votes were cast that they'd almost perfectly match up.

What we need is for a political system where the people actually get a vote. One in which the laws being passed were decided based on popular opinion rather than by the concensus of a bunch of actors. To me and several others here, the US Legislative Body is nothing more now than a WWF wrestling match, in that it's all been bought and paid for by the guys in power.

Let me know what you think.

TheBorg

[edit on 9-5-2006 by TheBorg]

You are exactly right, the people of this country need to know that their vote matters and that they, the people, not government/business making our choices for me.

If we went back to stronger states rights we would be more concerned about electing state officials rather than national figures, such as the President. Allowing each state to be more Freedom and Independance would in turn give the average American more choice onto how they want to live their lives. In this situation if you don't like the politics of the state you can move states.

It would be up to the states how they would like to incorporate, local aka county politics into the picture. That is the beauty of this System, we have 50 states in the union, each with its own solutions to its own problems. This set up encourages one to seek out solutions instead of relying on the fed Govt. to find them for us.

What do other ATSers think of stronger states rights less reliance on the Federal Government? I would like to hear from both Americans, name your state, and foreigners of any and every country.

Do you guys think giving states more rights would ease global tension and at the same time give Americans more liberties and rights?

Or would it be too expensive?

I think that the state government should be a bit stronger and the federal government weaker, but i dont think it should be so weak we could not agree and/or cope with any problems like the articles of confederation

Of course, and there would always be somethings that the U.S. kept on the federal government such as, taxes, military, blackprojects, fbi, cia, US Postal Service, minimize the IRS and call it quits? Anything else we should add to that list?

How about just allow all legal US citizens, of voting age, the right to vote on all Congressional legislation passing through Congress? It solves all of the problems that you mention, and gives the people the sense of control back that we've not had in about 200 years. Think it over, if you need a more in depth description, look around in the Political section here on ATS for my posts. You'll see what I think pretty quickly.

TheBorg

The answer to the thread question is, of course, no. Weaken the U.S. government's ability to wage aggressive war, and you would perhaps eliminate those wars caused by American aggression. But history gives us a long list of non-American warmongers, so we have to conclude that war is not caused (exclusively, anyway) by the U.S. The only way to create world peace would be to weaken every nation's ability to wage aggressive war, not just America's.

But setting aside the thread question, and dealing with the question of state rights versus the federal government, I think it's important to understand when the change took place and why. It is not a recent thing. It occurred in the 1860s. And the reason it took place is because the stronger states divided, challenged the authority of the weaker federal government, and fought a civil war that killed 600,000 people.

While slavery is a dead issue today, we have plenty of others that could divide the nation about as badly. Anyone feel like a replay of the Civil War? Go ahead, then, strengthen the states and weaken the federal government. Just give me warning ahead of time so I can leave the country, please.

Yes, you are correct 2 steps that is why in the 1860's the U.S had to go with a stronger federal government to preserve the union. However it is no longer the 1860's and the main reason why we still have a Strong Federal Government with weak to no states rights is becuase of big business. As I have once stated in this thread already, the MILITARY WOULD STILL BE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Furthermore, any State Miliitia that formed would be considered a threat to the union and would not be tolerated.

I believe that between the two parties these days there is enough hate to start another civil war. If you review history Civil Wars aren't always fought over State's Rights.

What the U.S. has chosen to do continuously since the 1860's is retire state and local rights to become Federal Rights. This LIMITS AMERICANS LIBERTIES, THIS POLICY MAKES AMERICANS LESS FREE. The further the U.S. goes to making Federal Rights Supreme over States Rights the more big business infiltrates through its(federal government's) system and corrupts it.

Right now, Big Business controls our government, is that alright with you 2 steps?

No, it's not alright with me that big business controls the government. But -- and I run into this with libertarians all the time -- the cure is not to weaken the government. In the first place, as long as big business controls the government and wants it strong, it's not even possible to weaken it. We'd have to take control back before that could even happen. But more to the point, the government (by which I mean a strong federal government) serves important purposes.

It's true that this is not the 1860s. But that only means we're not going to be fighting another civil war over slavery. How about over abortion rights, or the decline of Christian culture in many parts of the country? Or over immigration? Or globalization? There are always going to be issues dividing us as a people. Some of them will always inspire fanaticism. And the only thing that stops us from going to war among ourselves over them is that we lack the power. If one faction controls some of the states, while another controls others, that affects national elections, but the states cannot call out the militia and invade each other. That is what a strong central government insures, among other things.

This topic began with a discussion of our country's current warmongering spree, and suggested that a weaker national government would stop that. If the federal government continues to control the military, and the military remains strong, then merely allowing the states more leeway would not stop the country from going to war. And if it does not, then we risk another civil war.

If you want to end war, you need to recognize what causes it and what allows it. What causes it is human factionalism and passions. What allows it is regional governments, not central ones. The states of the U.S. do not go to war with each other because there is a strong central government empowered to prevent their doing so. The nations of the world DO go to war with each other, because there is no such central authority preventing THEM doing so.

The end of war cannot come from further fragmentation, but only from a global government. There is no other way.

"No, it's not alright with me that big business controls the government. But -- and I run into this with libertarians all the time -- the cure is not to weaken the government. In the first place, as long as big business controls the government and wants it strong, it's not even possible to weaken it. We'd have to take control back before that could even happen. But more to the point, the government (by which I mean a strong federal government) serves important purposes."


It's not even possible to weaken it? That'a a bit defeatist isn't it? A wise man once said,

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

-- Albert Einstein


Where would you put yourself?

"We'd have to take control back" Who is we? ? ? Have the democrats been anti-big business? WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both parties are responsible since big biz panders to both. The solution comes from the Individual voter aka us!!! If we want big biz out of government we could work our butts off to make it a possibility.

If you are a liberal, one who strongly defends Human/Individual rights, why are you so willing to trade those freedoms for a stronger government?

Originally posted by Low Orbit
"We'd have to take control back" Who is we? ? ? Have the democrats been anti-big business? WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't believe I mentioned the Democrats, did I? The corruption comes from both parties, of course.

If we want big biz out of government we could work our butts off to make it a possibility.

I agree completely. Make enough noise, and they have to pay attention. The problem right now is that too many people have their heads in the sand.

But the point is, you're putting cart before horse. We cannot solve the problem of corporate influence on the government by weakening the government, because until we solve that problem, and get the government back in the voters' hands, we CAN'T weaken the government.

I also wouldn't agree with weakening it, but that's another subject.

If you are a liberal, one who strongly defends Human/Individual rights, why are you so willing to trade those freedoms for a stronger government?

I don't see it as a trade. I see the government as a tool that can be used to protect freedoms, without which there can be no freedoms, except for the strongest and most ruthless. I see the issue as being, not how strong the government is, but rather whose interests it serves. Democracy is a way to make it serve the common interest rather than the privileged interests; naturally the privileged want to undermine democracy. But you don't bolster democracy by tearing down the government. You do it by making the government accountable.

"I agree completely. Make enough noise, and they have to pay attention. The problem right now is that too many people have their heads in the sand.

But the point is, you're putting cart before horse. We cannot solve the problem of corporate influence on the government by weakening the government, because until we solve that problem, and get the government back in the voters' hands, we CAN'T weaken the government.

I also wouldn't agree with weakening it, but that's another subject."

The way I see it government and Big Biz work hand in hand.
The only way I see us as citizens being able to take back our country from Corporate America is if we downsize government, government will never freely choose to downsize big biz.

Where am I going wrong?

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Where am I going wrong?

You say (and I agree) that corporate America has too much influence over the government.

You also say that you want to downsize the government to reduce that influence.

My question: if corporate America controls the government, HOW do you propose to downsize it? Are we talking armed rebellion here?

The legal way to reduce the scope of government is through acts of Congress cutting spending, cutting taxes, and repealing laws. But since corporate influence controls the government, any such act that works against the interests of corporate donors has no chance of being passed.

That's where you're going wrong. You cannot reduce corporate influence by shrinking government, because UNTIL you have ALREADY reduced corporate influence, you CAN'T shrink government.

My idea would be in the form of peaceful protest/demonstrations rather than an armed rebellion.

Who knows, maybe trying to get thousands if not millions to refuse to pay Federal Taxes to protest how unjustly the Feds spend it.

I trust Congress about as much as Ed Rooney trusts Ferris Bueller!

Originally posted by Low Orbit
My idea would be in the form of peaceful protest/demonstrations rather than an armed rebellion.

Well, sure. But if you're trying to organize that kind of thing to shrink the size of the government in order to reclaim it from corporate influence -- why not organize that kind of thing to reclaim the government from corporate influence directly?

Shrinking the government doesn't have the kind of public support that would have. As obvious as the connection "big government = corrupt government" may seem to you, it is in fact not self-evident, and most people simply don't think that way. If they did, the Libertarian Party would get a lot more votes. But these days, LOTS of people have the idea that our elected officials have been bought and paid for and they don't like that.

"Well, sure. But if you're trying to organize that kind of thing to shrink the size of the government in order to reclaim it from corporate influence -- why not organize that kind of thing to reclaim the government from corporate influence directly?"

The reason I feel shrinking the government is necessary is because what time has proven now and again is that we can not trust our own politicians. Since this is true we need to have more of them so that less of us can keep an eye on them. The more local the politician the better an eye the community can keep on them.

When politicians are away from their communities and in Washington they feel like they can do anything, and they can unless their communities stand up to them.

I don't know if my idea was clear enough, or if it's just not possible, but it solves the problem of Big Biz. It does so by giving the people the same level of power that everyone else has. To respond to the statement made that Big Biz controls the government I say that you are exactly right. My desire to give the say back to the people is a way to stop that dead in its tracks. It makes the "lobbying" of representatives pointless since they no longer carry any more weight than anyone else.

If we made the laws to make this a reality, I know that in time, it'll be corrupted again. That's what those with power do; they corrupt it. However, we have to try to make things better by making a stand when it counts, when we vote. That is, if we get a TRUE say. I pray that in time, we do.

TheBorg

Originally posted by Low Orbit
The reason I feel shrinking the government is necessary is because what time has proven now and again is that we can not trust our own politicians.

I understand the theory, but you still haven't given any notion of how you would go about this, when most Americans don't agree with you on your solution.

Going back to the thread topic, which concerned war -- the nature of states is to go to war with each other, and when not at war, to engage in diplomacy with the threat of war always in the background. States will fight to the extent that they see an advantage in doing so, believe they can win, and are allowed to by the absence, impotence or acquiescence of higher authorities. Libertarians see strong centralized states engaging in great big wars and seem to think that the solution is to weaken those centralized states and have many smaller states. But they're wrong, and history shows it. Many smaller states = many smaller wars, rather than fewer big ones. Is that an improvement? No, because it also means less time of actual peace.

Many small states = many small wars, with hardly any peace anywhere
Few big states = few big wars, devastating when they happen, but punctuated by long periods of widespread peace
One global state = no war

That last is the only solution, if you REALLY want to end war. The question is, do you?

Again, why not allow the people to have the say by voting on behalf of themselves, instead of allowing a representative to do it for us? How is this idea so foriegn to people? It's amazing to me that no one else sees how this would solve the very problems being discussed in this thread, along with every other thread of it's kind.

Maybe I've missed something so fundamental that I'm blinded. If so, please point out the glaring omission. I'll do what I can to make the plan work. There is a certain level of compromise associated with any drastic change, and this one is no different.

TheBorg