Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by badmedia
Actually you did identify the problem before, which is private interests have taken over the legislative powers of the U.S. government. Because of
that, laws get passed that don't reflect the best interests of the people of the U.S.A. and the world. Both parties are corrupt beyond redemption as
they currently stand.
I wont go into an environmentalist rant but this is a good illustration of what I'm trying to express to you: I live in a place where there is
still old growth forests. Tree farming is a proven failure in Scandinavia. A lack of regulations on forestry practices has and continues to this day
to create an extreme long term environmental catastrophe. Somebody has to make the law: No cutting next to a fish bearing stream. Or in oil extraction
somebody has to make the law: No contaminating the 400 square miles that surround your facility. Does this happen?- No. Actually the regulations exist
but aren't enforced. Would having the government turn a blind eye to such things help? Well, I sure don't think it has so far.
One of the greatest assets of humanity is that we have different individuals with different strengths. Unlike a colony of bacteria, we can arrange
our society so that the ones with strengths can assist the ones without through organization, whereas the colony of bacteria develops in a homogeneous
manner. By expecting our economic and social order to "work themselves out" what will happen is the ones with strengths will dominate those without.
The playing field has to be leveled. Ethics must be mandated because otherwise I feel like some people would act without them.
But you are supporting a failed system, and in the process giving people the false sense that things are being taken care of.
The problem of big money making it's way into these things needs to be accepted as going to happen
. And then measures need to be put into
place to stop it from happening. And that is exactly how this country was setup.
You see, it's not just about what is being done, it's about at what level is it being done. Big government = centralization. Centralization =
elites that have much power, and that = corruption. So the federal government was kept limited with a specific purpose.
The rest of the power then goes down to the states and to the individuals. It is not the job of the federal government to do anything it wants, it's
supposed to make sure the specific things listed are done and not infringed on.
So, these things should be handled by state and local governments. And it is the job of the federal government to insure that these state and local
governments don't infringe on the rights. It is also to handle things which cross state lines etc. The civil rights movement where they went to
the south and made sure black people we being allowed to vote - that is a legitimate job of the federal government. That is what they are supposed
The more decentralized the power is, it means "power to the people". Because on the federal level, you get 1 vote in 100 million or so that vote.
Your vote makes up a small % of the vote. If you put it at the state level, suddenly it's only 1 in a few million. You have more say in things
in your state. If you go even further and put it on a local level, then it's like 1 in a few hundred. And you can even become a counsilman or
mayor of a town somewhat easily(depending on the size of the town). The elections happen more frequently in the smaller places, which means it's
easier to get change. Not to mention that person has to deal with the people directly.
This was the entire draw to small town living back in the day. Now people live in cities herded up like gazelle hoping the lion eats the guy next to
him rather than him. Safety in numbers.
And when it comes to social programs. On a federal level you have 1 program for the entire country. It takes 4-8 years for just a chance at change.
If a bad change is made, the entire country is screwed over. Move that down to a state level. Now rather than 1 program, we have 50. Each working
to be the best. This allows many different things to be tried at once, and if 1 state screws up, only that state suffers. And they have 49 other
programs to look at to help fix it, rather than none. Once again you have more say in things due to 1 in less votes, as well as that you get to vote
more often. This is the system the U.S. had for years and was the reason it was #1 in the world in most areas of measure from healthcare, to
education and freedom. Not even close in those categories today in any of them.
And you can even move that down further to local communities. And then you have 1000's of programs to try things with, with the people themselves
having direct control over those, and able to make changes quickly. If it doesn't happen, then they can move to another town or state without
losing their basic rights.
If corruption sets into the small town, then it becomes the job of the state and then federal government to step in and make sure it's gone.
This is the purpose of the 10th amendment and part of the bill of rights.
So, those things would still be handled, but on a state and local level. Just because people don't want them on a federal level doesn't mean they
don't want it to be handled at all. It's not about the issue itself, it's about the system and processes behind them. Do you think we want to
live in a place that is run down, polluted and with bad schools? Not at all - I want freedom.
This is what it means to be Libertarian, not that crap Rush talks. If Rush = Libertarian I'd not be support them at all. He's a loud mouth
hypocrite and a puppet right along with Hannity.
This is what the constitution says, and this is how the country was founded. But people have given it all away over the years because they believed
officials from higher parts of government were going to handle the problems, just like you do. And what we have today is a direct result of it.