This is something I've heard people who have a massive hard on for Ron Paul say time and time again (also people who want to legalize pot);some people even suggest that we get rid of federal law entirely.Now,to me,a high school student with a (very) basic understanding of law,this seems like a bad idea,and many others have agreed.So my question is,are there any drawbacks to this plan besides the fact that it will turn the US into a massive cluster fuck (well,more so than it already is)?
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
"Let the states decide!"
- Thread starter ajh
- Start date
- Status
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, having less federal laws and more state control in the U.S. would make the U.S. a federation like the European Union (E.U.). There are very few over arching laws and a universal currency, but for the most part each country remains its own sovereign nation. If it works for the E.U., it could work for any place.
The real funny thing that I do not understand is that the Tea Party Republicans want to give the states more rights, yet they are always pointing to the E.U. and claiming that they do not want the U.S. to be like the E.U. The E.U. seems to be a great example of a federation that gives its states ample freedom to make their own laws. This is something the Tea Party Republicans should be praising and saying, "The U.S. needs to be more like the E.U. when it comes to state rights."
The real funny thing that I do not understand is that the Tea Party Republicans want to give the states more rights, yet they are always pointing to the E.U. and claiming that they do not want the U.S. to be like the E.U. The E.U. seems to be a great example of a federation that gives its states ample freedom to make their own laws. This is something the Tea Party Republicans should be praising and saying, "The U.S. needs to be more like the E.U. when it comes to state rights."
ImprobableJoe
New Member
It is batshit crazy... which shouldn't be surprising if it is linked to Ron Paul. 
"Turn the US into a massive cluster fuck (well,more so than it already is)?" is more than enough reason, don't you think? That brand of "libertarianism" is stupid irrational selfishness dressed in fancy language. These folks LOVE the federal government when they are getting Medicaid checks and SS and farm subsidies, and police and fire fighters and military to protect and defend their stuff... and then hate the government when it comes time to pay for those things, or when the rules that protect them from other people also protect other people from them.
"Turn the US into a massive cluster fuck (well,more so than it already is)?" is more than enough reason, don't you think? That brand of "libertarianism" is stupid irrational selfishness dressed in fancy language. These folks LOVE the federal government when they are getting Medicaid checks and SS and farm subsidies, and police and fire fighters and military to protect and defend their stuff... and then hate the government when it comes time to pay for those things, or when the rules that protect them from other people also protect other people from them.
ArthurWilborn
New Member
The argument for increased federal control is generally that it keeps the States from having individual policies that limit freedom (racist laws, for example). The problem is that it can quite easily be the case that the federal government enforces its stupid policies that limit freedom (the war on drugs) on the states. Between the two, I and most states' rights advocates believe that state governments are closer to and more accountable to the people, so generally they should be the ones to make the call. There's going to be some degree of clusterfuckery no matter what, that's just the nature of government.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Of course not. More importantly, there are no states in America that are like European sovereign nations. People forget that the economies of the various states are directly and inextricably tied together by the federal government. Take Texas as an example. If they decide to secede from the United States, bully for them. The military bases in Texas belong to the federal government, so all those jobs and equipment go bye-bye and in the military who wants to maintain their Texas citizenship would be discharged and join the ranks of unemployed Texans. Matching federal funds for education and healthcare? POOF! gone like the wind. Lots of contracts for supplying the military and federal government agencies go away, as do federal highway funds. Texas can keep its tax dollars, but will have to create its own miniature versions of lost federal agencies and lose the economics of scale.televator said:
And of course a lot of states in America get more in federal dollars than they pay into the system, so good luck paying your bills People's Republic of Alabama.
ImprobableJoe said:
Well, I didn't want to speak overtly as though I knew for a fact, but I asked the question mainly to to make the point that the US has probably the most incomparably arrogant, dogmatic, and backwards regions of any first world country to consider in such equations.
Texas might just be crazy enough to secede, especially if it can take a few other states with it.
WarK
Active Member
televator said:
How would it affect other states? Do you think the rest of the US would get more civilised with out the burden?
I wonder how would it affect the results of "do you accept evolution" poll
How likely is it anyways?
There was this tv show "Jericho" that pondered splitting of the US as a result of a nuclear attack carried out by someone "inside". They made Texas one of the good guys iirc.
In a sort of reverse of the US situation, I'm in an apparent minority of Europeans who see a decrease in independence for the EU nations as a desirable thing. I believe quite strongly that getting rid of borders and reorganising Europe into a centralised, federal nation like the US would put us and the west in general in a better position to ensure that we can keep up with China and other potential rising stars economically. It would also allow us to cut down on the ridiculously-large armed forces possessed by the EU member-states. With a centralised system, a huge amount of money could be saved by cutting the EU's armed forces to maybe 200-400 thousand troops from the 1.8 million currently in active service. This frees up a vast amount of money for improving the quality of life and standard of living for European citizens. I staunchly back the idea of electing a President of Europe as a means to this end.
WarK said:televator said:
How would it affect other states? Do you think the rest of the US would get more civilised with out the burden?
I wonder how would it affect the results of "do you accept evolution" poll
How likely is it anyways?
There was this tv show "Jericho" that pondered splitting of the US as a result of a nuclear attack carried out by someone "inside". They made Texas one of the good guys iirc.
I don't think it is very likely at all unless the circumstances in Washington's power structure changes and several states decide on it. As Joe said, it's hard to "go it alone".
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Imagine a scenario in which the religious-right in America is successful in banning abortion. Do you think it would be better for a woman to have to completely depart from the U.S. to get that abortion in another country? Why would anybody want to make that hard? Why not simply allow her to go to the state next door? Why does it have to be universal, and introduce all the problems of immigration; to flee a tyrannical state?ajh said:
- You see...decentralized power is the enemy of abuse. I am inclined towards the view that the only thing centralizing power does is make the system easier to abuse and exploit people with.
The topic, as far I understand is complex:
1-Federal regulations are required as far as they protect the individuals against the power of corporations. The FDA tries to do so, but since the pharmaceutical development is complex that is not an easy task
2-The most of the Americans seem to ignore the damage done by fundies and corporations, unless they are personally affected. For instance, ID/creationism is a threat to the development of education, but since it is a slow process John Doe American don't care! Gays rights don,´t care since they are a minority and so on!
1-Federal regulations are required as far as they protect the individuals against the power of corporations. The FDA tries to do so, but since the pharmaceutical development is complex that is not an easy task
2-The most of the Americans seem to ignore the damage done by fundies and corporations, unless they are personally affected. For instance, ID/creationism is a threat to the development of education, but since it is a slow process John Doe American don't care! Gays rights don,´t care since they are a minority and so on!
kenandkids
New Member
nasher168 said:
Doesn't the EU already have a president?
ajh said:
Your unsubstantiated assertions and half-ass appeal to authority is stupid. I'm assuming that those "high school students with a (very) basic understanding of law" are unaware of the principle of subsidiarity and the Tenth Amendment of the US. Why not enact a universal law that applies to the whole world to ban abortions so we can have women shoving coat hangers up themselves? Systematic decentralization is needed to secure individual liberty.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
75% estate tax, here we come!!! Then we'll break up Walmart and give each store to its employees! Liberty is AWESOME!impiku said:
ImprobableJoe said:
Didn't you know Joe? Freedom = the freedom for corporations to enslave the masses. So of course you'd want to chop to bits any semblance of organization that can bargain with or confront a huge centralized multinational for profit entity.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Well, that's not how they sell it to the regular folks, it is? They spin them fairy tales about "liberty" and "freedom" while stripping them of both. It is a cross between a religious cult and a pyramid scheme.televator said:
They'll take their freedom --15 hour/7 days a week -- job, freedom stick shelter, freedom scrap food, and their tattered rags of freedom over any social structure. We'll just stick to calling that "life style" for what it really is though...Slavery.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Freedom to drink polluted water, freedom to drive on dirt roads, freedom to die of starvation if you lose your job, freedom to die of disease if your insurance company drops you the minute you get sick... freedom from all of the benefits of the 20th century, unless you're a member of the new royalty.televator said:
- Status