It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Would Stronger State's Rights Lead to World Peace?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
You're Wrong. Like I have already stated twice, stronger states rights does not have to mean more civil wars. Yes, I understand how the US had a Civil War over a hundred years ago. For, arguments sake and your own, let's just say that the states will be able to control its citizens and will be able to stop revolts and militias, similarly to how the fed. government does it now.


Here is how I see it...

Many small states = many small individual cultures, many different liberties, most free system for its citizens
Few big states = few big cultures, while much less free than with many smaller states, its citizens would still have the opti
One global state = A Nazi State, where difference of opinion is met with fear and intoloerance by the authority. Complete lack of freedom, either the Governments way or the Federal Penitentiary's way!

Who would want to live in a one global/US state anyways! Have you ever read Orwell's 1984?




posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
"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."

True, this approach would solve nearly every problem associated with a Democracy the one problem I see is how do we make sure that the poor have the same access to voting as the rich. The poor are limited by resources and transportation. If everyone could vote from online, let's say, it would cost the government millions if not billions to give all of the poor good enough computers to vote online. However, if this form of voting was only to replace the Congress many people would still not understand what they are voting for since many of the Congresses bills are Christmas Trees and have a hundred plus issues underneath their main objective.

"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."

I think you've pretty much got it. It would be really interesting to try an online based voting system to replace local politics in a random district. This would give its citizens a crash course in Democracy. Hopefully, this would empower the average citizen into understanding once again that politics are important and effect how we live our day to day lives.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
True, this approach would solve nearly every problem associated with a Democracy the one problem I see is how do we make sure that the poor have the same access to voting as the rich. The poor are limited by resources and transportation. If everyone could vote from online, let's say, it would cost the government millions if not billions to give all of the poor good enough computers to vote online. However, if this form of voting was only to replace the Congress many people would still not understand what they are voting for since many of the Congresses bills are Christmas Trees and have a hundred plus issues underneath their main objective.


To allow everyone the freedom to vote, we keep the polling stations open year-round, and man them with the very same local citizens that run them any other time of year. Just pay them a salary to run them all the time. It makes jobs, and allows the people the access to the system so that they can have a say. No downside.

As to the costing the government millions of dollars to run this online, I say that that's no different than any of the other ludicrous things they're spending our money on right now, like a war that everyone's sick of, for example.

To better help the people understand what it is that's being debated, the people we've elected to be representatives for us should stay there and debate the issues for us, giving us the pros and cons of said issues. However, they would no longer be representatives; they would be simple debators. That way, we can make an informed decision when we go to the polling stations locally or online.



I think you've pretty much got it. It would be really interesting to try an online based voting system to replace local politics in a random district. This would give its citizens a crash course in Democracy. Hopefully, this would empower the average citizen into understanding once again that politics are important and effect how we live our day to day lives.


Exactly. By God, I think ya got it.


TheBorg



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
ok, borg, it still has a few flaws but Im on board, how would you go about implementing said plan?

Do you think either the Dems or Reps would sign onto it too? Or would you have to go with a Third Party Candidate?

Could it be achieved by peaceful protest? Could we try it and its affects on local politics before we try replacing congress?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
You're Wrong. Like I have already stated twice, stronger states rights does not have to mean more civil wars.


It does if it's to have any impact on the ability of the U.S. government to start wars. Give the states more power along other lines, lines that don't include warmaking power, and sure you don't risk civil war. But you don't impact the ability of America to start global wars, either.




Here is how I see it...

Many small states = many small individual cultures, many different liberties, most free system for its citizens


No, it only means the most freedom for the small states, i.e. for the governments, not for the people living under them.

California is a small state without full sovereignty. Cuba is a small state with full sovereignty. Cuba, as a state, has more freedom than California, e.g. it can negotiate treaties with other countries, maintain military forces, etc. which California cannot. But are Cubans freer than Californians? I wouldn't say so.



Who would want to live in a one global/US state anyways! Have you ever read Orwell's 1984?


I have. But if you think it described one global state, I'm not sure you have. Because it didn't. It described three states, constantly at war with each other. And that war was crucial to keeping Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia in power. A global state with the characteristics of those three states would therefore be impossible.

In fact, a global tyranny of any kind would be impossible at present, because the world's nations would not support one. And it is the world's national governments that would have to create a global government, which would be erected for limited purposes.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Low Orbit, the question of whether we should or should not have a global government is one of values. But this thread is talking about something objective: the possibility of war.

War happens because nations want to go to war and are able to do so. In order to prevent war, nations must be rendered incapable of doing so. Adding more states with the ability to go to war obviously wouldn't accomplish that.

A global government is the only way to stop war. If, for other reasons, you don't like the idea of a global government, then you must accept the continued occurrence of war. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Two Steps, I understood what your spam was telling me with your first post.

Thank you for illustrating to the rest of ATS what a solid 10th grade education looks and sounds like.

You are an ignoranus who keeps spamming up this post.

By simply repeating your point over and over or yelling louder and louder doesn't make you right. (We aren't at your house, and we aren't your wife.)

You have added nothing new in your last several posts and I would appreciate it if you would find another thread to spam up!

-Start your own post in opposition if it's that important to you.

Now for anyone out there that want to discuss other problems/issues associated with stronger states rights (other than it will lead to civil war) I would love to hear from them.





[edit on 16-5-2006 by Low Orbit]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Low Orbit:

Rude, obnoxious, and cop-out request denied. And by the way, you, not I, are the one merely repeating your assertions without any reasoning or evidence attached. I've told you why I think you're wrong, and if the best you can do in response is to throw childish insults, I think most people here will correctly regard that as a concession of defeat.

You want some other problems associated with stronger states' rights, fine, here you go.

Start with the fact that more independent states would be as likely to do bad things as good ones. For illustration, I point you towards segregation. People aren't angels, and freedom must always be curtailed by law. The trick is to allow people freedom to express their best, without allowing them the freedom to express their worst. Not easy, I realize. In some ways, I would like to see the states granted more freedom; medical marijuana laws come to mind at once. But it's not a panacea and not something you can slather on with a clumsy brush. Some discrimination and care are needed.

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
ok, borg, it still has a few flaws but Im on board, how would you go about implementing said plan?


Well, it's going to take a bit of doing. I've already emailed a proposal to the major media outlets around, but have heard nothing in response; most likely because those that control the media caught it and discarded it before anyone could read it.

I would like to start by getting more people talking about it. As I've said before, there's no reason that this cannot work. It makes perfect sense, and to also answer the argument between you and Two Steps, this would supercede both ideas. It would ultimately give the power not to the government nor to the states, but to the People, the ones that deserve it most.

What I think should happen though is that an amendment to the Constitution should be adopted that makes these things law. We could get rid of lobbying and the Electoral College with one action. It would increase the efficiency and honesty of our government by a factor of 10 I think.



Do you think either the Dems or Reps would sign onto it too? Or would you have to go with a Third Party Candidate?


I think that they would have no choice if it somehow got out into the open. If the People want something bad enough, the government WILL oblige them. Take this border issue for example. There's been a compromise on that, and no, I don't agree with most of it, but it's better than nothing. It should just serve as an illustration though of how powerful the voices of average citizens still are, when exercised en masse. The catch is getting the People thinking along the same lines.

Everyone in this nation is kind of on 'pins and needles' at the moment, in anticipation of something that we all sense is coming. Watch the news for proof. Most newscasters are talking about this very same issue, just not using my idea (what a pity!!). Most think the change will be violent. I don't. I think what most are feeling is just the awakening from their long slumber to find a world completely lost to them. They're going to want it back, and they're going to get it too. It's just a matter of how they go about it. I think the starting point though is to inform the People. Education should be the fundamental starting place for any kind of change.

As for a Third party, no I don't think the People need one. I think most rational people feel and think the same way I do, but they're just afraid to take the step out there to make the statement that the current system doesn't work. I'm not afraid to make that statement.



Could it be achieved by peaceful protest? Could we try it and its affects on local politics before we try replacing congress?


Look, I want to dispell something right now. I don't look at it as replacing Congress, because they would still be up there debating the issues pertinent to us. It's just that their votes would no longer count for as much as they do right now. The People would all be able to have a say in the matter. Trying it on a local government is good, but for it to work, it would all have to be done at about the same time. This way the transition is as seamless and painless as possible.

As for this being done peacefully, I don't see why it should ever need to involve violence. Should violence break out, I want everyone to know that I will not be the one that initiates that kind of contact. My goals are purely peaceful and for the People of this nation as a whole. Remember the saying that goes something like this, "The collective of the nation outweighs the needs of the few"? I think it applies well here. I don't expect my proposal to catch on immediately with everyone, but once they all realize how easy it'll be to vote, then they will come around I think.

As always, lemme know what you think.

TheBorg



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
"I would like to start by getting more people talking about it. As I've said before, there's no reason that this cannot work. It makes perfect sense, and to also answer the argument between you and Two Steps, this would supercede both ideas. It would ultimately give the power not to the government nor to the states, but to the People, the ones that deserve it most."


I will have to disagree with this statement, if you have one centralized "free" voting system established for 300 million people do you know how much culture that country would have? Answer,... Zero.

By replacing congress with a National Voting System, yes people would be able to vote for issues directly. However they are not just voting for what they want for themselves but what they want for all 300 million Americans.

Borg, if you truly believe this system would improve the U.S., please do a bit of travelling outside the U.S.

However if we went back to stronger states rights(giving the Fed limited power and control over the Military and a few other government agencies) and let individual states become the places they want to be it might be a beautiful thing especially with a system like thee National Voting System.

This way the U.S. could start building culture instead of destroying it.

What is wrong with Marijuana being legalized on the West Coast along with assisted suicide while having stronger death sentancing and more laxed gun laws in Texas, Alabama, and Georgia? What is wrong with having some states lean more towards big business and some siding with small business? If you don't like your states politics you can move, however if you don't like the politics with the current system, tough luck, move to Canada!



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
I will have to disagree with this statement, if you have one centralized "free" voting system established for 300 million people do you know how much culture that country would have? Answer,... Zero.


Since when did culture become a part of the voting system? I'm not trying to take culture away from the people. All I'm trying to do is to give them the freedom to have a say in what gets done. Every single citizen would be allowed to have as much of thier own culture as they'd like to, if not moreso, provided it's within the confines of this nation's laws. Could you elaborate a bit on your statement please? I think I misunderstood you.



By replacing congress with a National Voting System, yes people would be able to vote for issues directly. However they are not just voting for what they want for themselves but what they want for all 300 million Americans.


But isn't that what Congress does everyday? They decide what's best for all of us, whether we think it's best for us or not. Not to mention the fact that there's fewer of them to influence right now to get something passed than there would be if everyone could have a say. The last time I heard what the public approval rating for the Congress was, it was 19%. That's how well the average American feels that they are doing. This should be nothing more than yet another testament to how bad things are getting.

And again, this idea doesn't replace Congress; it simply improves it.



Borg, if you truly believe this system would improve the U.S., please do a bit of travelling outside the U.S.


Why is travelling outside of the US necessary? We're a melting pot of cultures. There's people from everywhere on the planet in my neighborhood. There's no reason why I should have to travel abroad to learn anything more than I already do or can learn here.



However if we went back to stronger states rights(giving the Fed limited power and control over the Military and a few other government agencies) and let individual states become the places they want to be it might be a beautiful thing especially with a system like thee National Voting System.

This way the U.S. could start building culture instead of destroying it.


While I understand the concept of increasing States' rights, I'm still trying to figure out how it would solve anything since the states would be the ones that those in power would be controlling instead of the centralized government. Granted, it's more spread out this way, but those that are currently under the influence of those in power would still be in power at that point unless every single government position was filled with someone new. That might begin to solve the problem. But, to make it harder to re-corrupt, there would have to be a rule like with the President that they couldn't serve more than a few terms in office. That would alleviate the Career Politician.



What is wrong with Marijuana being legalized on the West Coast along with assisted suicide while having stronger death sentancing and more laxed gun laws in Texas, Alabama, and Georgia? What is wrong with having some states lean more towards big business and some siding with small business? If you don't like your states politics you can move, however if you don't like the politics with the current system, tough luck, move to Canada!



And that right there I whole-heartedly disagree with. I can't believe that anyone would just run from something. When did running from oppression become the standard reaction? The entire idea of giving the freedom to choose to those that it should be given to has its obvious' faults. Namely, there will be laws made that seem off the wall, but that's what the People want. There has to be a majority for anything to work.

Not to mention, I thought this thread was about trying to decide whether states' rights or national rights should be increased.
Since when do you advocate giving up on the whole system if one doesn't like the way it's ran?

I say we stand up and say what we feel. If we want the freedom to vote on all legislation, then we should have it. I still fail to see why this is such a bad idea.

TheBorg



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I too live in a "mixed" community in which there are many different types of people living together many of which have different religions. Although within these specific families there might be some culure remaining on the whole there is a limited amount. The reason why there is a limited amount of culture is because of the fact that once a foreigner moves to the U.S. they are expected to rid themselves of there local garb and traditions in the name of t-shirts and cheeseburgers.

Culture is when a group of people are allowed to live with each other and are allowed to practice the norms of its ancestors. Yes, culture is a form of segregation, in which a group of people choose to live their lives according to a certain standard set up by ancestors and previous generations. These ancestors and previous generations are respected by said culture and are looked at as inspiration on how future generations ought to live.

Some examples of Culture still remaining in the U.S.
-Chinatown's(SF, NYC, etc)
-Little Italy(SF, NYC, etc)
-Little Mexicos
-Harlem, New Orleans
-Quakers

While many view segregation as an evil today, Malcolm X saw segregation as a way for the black community to reclaim the culture that was stolen from it in previous generations.

***I am in no way stating that we should have required segregation or federal/state/local segregation. What I am saying is that within these Sub-cultures, culture thrives. Music, food, art, literature, and tradition thrive for segregated communities.

By forcing every state in the Union to abide by the same laws as your state you are further making the U.S. into a cultureless society. By giving 300 million people 2 options on any issue you in essense are becoming a Fascist Dictator.

To me Liberty(freedom) means options. In the society that you have set up I see no choice, I see no freedom. I see an issue having two sides and you can vote for one way or the other and if you don't like either option, tough get used to it!

What do you care if we can smoke joints on the street legally in California or Hang a man in Texas, who are you to say that that is wrong?

BY HAVING LESS PEOPLE MAKE THE RULES YOU GIVE THEM MORE POLITICAL POWER. MY VOTE IN CALIFORNIA MATTERS ROUGHLY 8 TIMES MORE THAN DOES MY VOTE TO THE U.S. THE SMALLER WE CAN GET THE VOTING POOLS THE MORE RIGHTS US INDIVIDUALS CAN CONTROL.

NOT EVERY AMERICAN WANTS THE SAME THING, WHY DO YOU WANT US ALL TO LIVE EXACTLY LIKE EACH OTHER, DO YOU WANT US TO LIVE LIKE NAZIS?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Low Orbit:

I see what you're getting at with that post. You misunderstood me when I made that comment about superceding both state's and national rights.

The only system I propose is one where the issues that are pertinent to the nation as a whole are decided by everyone, not what goes on in one state. I think I also misunderstood what it was that you were trying to say. You and Two Steps were arguing about who should have more rights, whether it be the states or the national government. For that I apologize. I'll have to read between the lines a bit more I guess. I thought you were debating who would have say over everything.

I think local issues should be dealt with locally, and should not be left to the nation to decide. If it becomes a national problem, then at that point, I DO think that everyone has to have a say. I'm in NO WAY advocating the loss of culture. I'm merely trying to encourage people to be able to have more of a say in what gets done.

Mutual misunderstandings aside, I think we all think in much the same way. We all want something Utopian, but will have to settle for a less-perfect compromise to give the People more time to evolve. Maybe we can accomplish that if we all apply ourselves. Let's hope that's the case.

TheBorg



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I myself am strongly anti-federal. I am a big believer in states rights. More power to the individual states would indeed be a good thing for the U.S. It would give a wider range of dissent to be manifested, and would limit agreement on alot of issues, thus halting alot of the federal government's policies and attempts to impose unpopular laws. People would turn more inward towards their individual state and there would be alot more variety.

I personally believe that the federal government should have no jurisdiction beyond those in the constitution: a military to defend our borders, a postal service to deliver the mail, imposing tarrifs on international goods, and the federal judicial system. Beyond that, they need to stay out of the game at large.



posted on May, 25 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
To the Borg, great previous post, yea, I think we are on the same page too.

To the Evil Elf, you are so right, and so beautiful!

I believe what we are all talking about are Jeffersonian Politics, aka advocates for stronger states rights.

www.jeffersonianparty.com...

I found this webpage in my search of it.

I guess there are a few congressmen who feel the same way we do, unfortunately my district is no where near theres.

It is my belief that Jefersonian politics can cut through the problems of the democrats and republicans and find middle ground solutions for both. We can have our cake and eat it too with Jeffersonian Politics by allowing Liberal states to become more liberal and conservative states to become more conservative if we can get "Big Brother" aka Federal Government out of State's issues/rights.

For too long, have both parties pandered to blatant federalism at the expense of small/medium sized business and low-medium income individuals and families.

The next question I think this thread should address is what is the best way to get more Jeffersonian Politicians into office(both republican and democrat alike)? And will these Jeffersonian politicians truly work to reverse the damage federalism has done to state's rights?



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Well, my personal view is that the people should have the final say when it comes to anything, since they're the ones that will be the most affected. No one gets a say on any of the issues until it comes time to vote for new representatives for local, state, or federal governments. And then they don't get to change anything that the federal government has passed. If only the people could have the say on major votes, like this immigration bill that somehow got passed today, there would be no need for any malcontent, as the people would have decided, and that would be final.

How can the people ever hope to be free when they cannot even have the ability to decide what they want to be law? We elect a few people, which are easily bought and paid for by those with money, and then they make laws that suit them rather than we the people. How is that fair or just? To answer that, let me use the example of the Enron convictions.

The two Enron execs that got canned, and are going to prison will not be getting mistreated like you or I would for the same kind of crime. No, they'll be in a max-security prison facility along with all of the other wealthy criminals. They have golf courses, workout gyms, internet, lounges, all the amenities of home, right in their facility. And guess who pays for all of that stuff? You got it, we the taxpayers do! So not only did they shaft us while they were "free", but now they're shafting us from prison as well. Now, answer me this again: How is that FAIR and JUST in our society? It's NOT!! How can we tolerate that kind of misuse of power?

It's just mind-boggling to think of all of the things that have been done, and how vulnerable our current system is to misuse. What's it going to take to wake the American People up to the fact that they've lost control over their own government? I just hope that there's still time to make change before the totalitarian regime comes about. Because it IS coming, and anyone with eyes can see that. Or at least I thought so... Maybe I'm misguided, and then again maybe I'm the only one that sees it for what it is. I hope neither are true. People deserve the right to decide their own fates, and as it stands right now, they can't. I pray that in time, that will become a reality. One step at a time, and the first step is education.

TheBorg



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I don't think so. As mentioned before the US isn't the only nation (and probably isn't the last) that has launch unpopular wars. However a lack of US involvement could and IMO would embolden nations such as Iran, North Korea or some other country with a nut at the helm to step up their destablizing influences in the regions they occupy. But that really doesn't bother me. I think stronger states rights would increase the american desire to isolate itself from the arena of international affairs or at least force the Federal Government to adopt a more non-interventionist policy.

Personally I would favor the states once again be able to decide who gets married or not or if you can have an abortion or not. I'm Pro-Choice by the way however I understand that what works in California doesn't necessarily work in North Dakota or Montana or where ever you are (same thing with gay rights). I think the Federal Government and the individual states could do a better job of coordinating their efforts on education, healthcare and other areas that effect the public.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join