Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

john9blue wrote:i think bbs nailed it. strong central governments are prone to corruption no matter who is in charge, because of human nature.

Power corrupts. breaking up the power just gives more people a chance to corrupt, it does not really change the equation.

The check on our system is not the states, it is the people. But, for that to work, people need information. People are more and more lazy in that regard. We have the internet, but it is even more difficult to weed out good, critical information than before when there was less information available.

the closer people are to their government, the more likely they are (able) to hold that government accountable for its actions.

plus it more easily allows people to choose the type of government that they prefer, voting with both ballots and feet.

That ease of response is why they are more corruptable. I have trotted out Corbett a lot lately, but he would not have been elected if it were not for the extremely vocal campaigns both from the anti-tax front and the anti-abortion front. Many of those same people are now most angry that no one is paying for all the damage happening around us, (not really) from fracking operations (fracking== deep drilling for natural gas)

john9blue wrote:and i reject the idea that people are less informed today than they were before the internet.

Depends on what you mean by "informed". People are more versed in other people's opinions. However, if you get to real information.. well, its boring and tends to spread less readily than in the past, even.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In order to answer the question of efficiencies, we'd need to gather data on what, exactly, the states do and what, exactly, the federal government does and how much each costs relative to the needs of the people of each state.

No one here is going to do that.

So, let's fall back on original intent (which no one else likes, but I do, so shove off)... was the original intent of the framers to have quasi-independent states (like BBS suggests) or a strong national government? The answer is, of course, the former. So, if the answer is that the original intent of the framers was to have quasi-independent states, why did they decide on this course? Was it for efficiency? Was it because they didn't trust a strong central government (like that crazy thegreekdog guy)?

Initially, combining multiple states with diverse interests was necessary and expedient. However, as time progressed, more and more needed to be unified. It culminated with the civil war. We have gone so far past what the "original intent" of the framers was that its essentially irrelevant. Back then, there were no trains, never mind planes and internet. When it took a week to get across some states, you could not expect things to be as united as they are today. Now, the reverse is true. Texas go to California, Maine and Alaska regularly. Plus, we go all over the world and people from all over come here daily.
Add in changes to banking, ideas about people's rights (women and minorities had none at our nation's inception).. and claims to tie us back to the dreams of the founders is restraining, not illuminating.

I don't find any of that to be a relevant argument against stronger states/weaker central government. It doesn't seem to me that trains, planes, the internet, travel time, ability to travel worldwide, banking changes, people's rights...none of that would need to be affected by such a move.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In order to answer the question of efficiencies, we'd need to gather data on what, exactly, the states do and what, exactly, the federal government does and how much each costs relative to the needs of the people of each state.

No one here is going to do that.

So, let's fall back on original intent (which no one else likes, but I do, so shove off)... was the original intent of the framers to have quasi-independent states (like BBS suggests) or a strong national government? The answer is, of course, the former. So, if the answer is that the original intent of the framers was to have quasi-independent states, why did they decide on this course? Was it for efficiency? Was it because they didn't trust a strong central government (like that crazy thegreekdog guy)?

Initially, combining multiple states with diverse interests was necessary and expedient. However, as time progressed, more and more needed to be unified. It culminated with the civil war. We have gone so far past what the "original intent" of the framers was that its essentially irrelevant. Back then, there were no trains, never mind planes and internet. When it took a week to get across some states, you could not expect things to be as united as they are today. Now, the reverse is true. Texas go to California, Maine and Alaska regularly. Plus, we go all over the world and people from all over come here daily.
Add in changes to banking, ideas about people's rights (women and minorities had none at our nation's inception).. and claims to tie us back to the dreams of the founders is restraining, not illuminating.

I don't find any of that to be a relevant argument against stronger states/weaker central government. It doesn't seem to me that trains, planes, the internet, travel time, ability to travel worldwide, banking changes, people's rights...none of that would need to be affected by such a move.

When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer. That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

john9blue wrote:the closer people are to their government, the more likely they are (able) to hold that government accountable for its actions.

AND they're more likely to FEEL LIKE THEY CAN have an impact.

john9blue wrote:and i reject the idea that people are less informed today than they were before the internet.

I would agree with PLAYER on this one, simply because I believe that back then, journalists weren't as intent on pushing their biases as they are now. Because it happens on such a wide stage now with very few exceptions (there are a very few), I think individuals tend to listen only to those journalists would tend to say things that agree with the individual's already-existing biases. That's not the road to being more informed. I even fall susceptible to it, as much as I try to remain centrist...I can't stand to watch most parts of Fox News. But by not doing so, I am effectively cutting myself off from a particular perspective.

Still, it is more difficult to hold those in more power accountable for the consequences of their decisions. That, and it's more difficult to ascertain blame as decisions are made further from those who experience the consequences of those decisions. Consider holding a peaceful protest within one's city against some perceived wrong from that mayor, compared to holding a peaceful protest at Washington D.C... Granted, one can still protest at one's city against D.C., but the impact is much more minimal.


As for corruption, you still have corrupt Senators and Congressmen even with the ideal strong, central government, but with the central government, they get to meet there and exert their influence over the entire nation--as oppose to one State. That equation is vastly different from the same people only being able to exert control over a State.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In order to answer the question of efficiencies, we'd need to gather data on what, exactly, the states do and what, exactly, the federal government does and how much each costs relative to the needs of the people of each state.

No one here is going to do that.

So, let's fall back on original intent (which no one else likes, but I do, so shove off)... was the original intent of the framers to have quasi-independent states (like BBS suggests) or a strong national government? The answer is, of course, the former. So, if the answer is that the original intent of the framers was to have quasi-independent states, why did they decide on this course? Was it for efficiency? Was it because they didn't trust a strong central government (like that crazy thegreekdog guy)?

Initially, combining multiple states with diverse interests was necessary and expedient. However, as time progressed, more and more needed to be unified. It culminated with the civil war. We have gone so far past what the "original intent" of the framers was that its essentially irrelevant. Back then, there were no trains, never mind planes and internet. When it took a week to get across some states, you could not expect things to be as united as they are today. Now, the reverse is true. Texas go to California, Maine and Alaska regularly. Plus, we go all over the world and people from all over come here daily.
Add in changes to banking, ideas about people's rights (women and minorities had none at our nation's inception).. and claims to tie us back to the dreams of the founders is restraining, not illuminating.

I don't find any of that to be a relevant argument against stronger states/weaker central government. It doesn't seem to me that trains, planes, the internet, travel time, ability to travel worldwide, banking changes, people's rights...none of that would need to be affected by such a move.

When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer.
That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

Sure, that's true...but again, I don't find it a relevant argument against stronger state governments.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer.
That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

Sure, that's true...but again, I don't find it a relevant argument against stronger state governments.

It is why stronger state governments made more sense back then. Today, there are not many differences between states. The needs of all states are pretty similar, the differences as much within the state as between states, with a few exceptions. The idea that we need different states to meet different needs is far less significant. Note.. I did not say no difference, I said much less.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer.
That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

Sure, that's true...but again, I don't find it a relevant argument against stronger state governments.

It is why stronger state governments made more sense back then. Today, there are not many differences between states. The needs of all states are pretty similar, the differences as much within the state as between states, with a few exceptions. The idea that we need different states to meet different needs is far less significant. Note.. I did not say no difference, I said much less.

Except that the law of the land states that it will be that way.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer.
That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

Sure, that's true...but again, I don't find it a relevant argument against stronger state governments.

It is why stronger state governments made more sense back then. Today, there are not many differences between states. The needs of all states are pretty similar, the differences as much within the state as between states, with a few exceptions. The idea that we need different states to meet different needs is far less significant. Note.. I did not say no difference, I said much less.

Except that the law of the land states that it will be that way.

We will always have independent states, sure. No one is disputing that. However, the question was why there should be a difference now than then.. why we might have moved toward a more unified and stronger national government.

PLAYER57832 wrote:That ease of response is why they are more corruptable. I have trotted out Corbett a lot lately, but he would not have been elected if it were not for the extremely vocal campaigns both from the anti-tax front and the anti-abortion front. Many of those same people are now most angry that no one is paying for all the damage happening around us, (not really) from fracking operations (fracking== deep drilling for natural gas)

can't similar campaigns exist at a national level as well?

sure, small governments are more likely to have complete psychopaths, but it's easy enough for people to realize this and get him out of there.

Woodruff wrote:I would agree with PLAYER on this one, simply because I believe that back then, journalists weren't as intent on pushing their biases as they are now. Because it happens on such a wide stage now with very few exceptions (there are a very few), I think individuals tend to listen only to those journalists would tend to say things that agree with the individual's already-existing biases. That's not the road to being more informed. I even fall susceptible to it, as much as I try to remain centrist...I can't stand to watch most parts of Fox News. But by not doing so, I am effectively cutting myself off from a particular perspective.

maybe, i wouldn't know lol, because it has been that way for as long as i've been old enough to care about politics.

john9blue wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:That ease of response is why they are more corruptable. I have trotted out Corbett a lot lately, but he would not have been elected if it were not for the extremely vocal campaigns both from the anti-tax front and the anti-abortion front. Many of those same people are now most angry that no one is paying for all the damage happening around us, (not really) from fracking operations (fracking== deep drilling for natural gas)

can't similar campaigns exist at a national level as well?

sure, small governments are more likely to have complete psychopaths, but it's easy enough for people to realize this and get him out of there.

Teh time factor. Its much less likely for a whole nation to be fully corrupted. Things tend to stay pretty close to the "status quo". Even look at this past election, the so-called "revolution". Despite my cynacism regarding the Tea Party, the bottom line is that even such a massive movement was only able to install a few candidates.. and they were actually in other parties.

nothing is new under the sun. You think bias are pushed now more than ever? Check the election of 1800, 1824.

Lulz

You only think it's worse now because the right can stand up for themselves in the media now.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer.
That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

Sure, that's true...but again, I don't find it a relevant argument against stronger state governments.

It is why stronger state governments made more sense back then. Today, there are not many differences between states. The needs of all states are pretty similar, the differences as much within the state as between states, with a few exceptions. The idea that we need different states to meet different needs is far less significant. Note.. I did not say no difference, I said much less.

Except that the law of the land states that it will be that way.

We will always have independent states, sure. No one is disputing that. However, the question was why there should be a difference now than then.. why we might have moved toward a more unified and stronger national government.

No, you misunderstand...the law of the land states that we will have a weaker national government and stronger state governments. In fact, it's quite clear on that subject.

Woodruff wrote:No, you misunderstand...the law of the land states that we will have a weaker national government and stronger state governments. In fact, it's quite clear on that subject.

I disagree, but in honesty am too tired out right now to properly debate that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:No, you misunderstand...the law of the land states that we will have a weaker national government and stronger state governments. In fact, it's quite clear on that subject.

I disagree, but in honesty am too tired out right now to properly debate that.

You don't believe the US Constitution outlines a weak federal government and strong state governments? I'd love to hear that argument.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer.
That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

Sure, that's true...but again, I don't find it a relevant argument against stronger state governments.

It is why stronger state governments made more sense back then. Today, there are not many differences between states. The needs of all states are pretty similar, the differences as much within the state as between states, with a few exceptions. The idea that we need different states to meet different needs is far less significant. Note.. I did not say no difference, I said much less.

That's because the federal government has forced all of the states to be the same instead of enacting their own policies. The reason you don't want the states to have more power is because the federal government has already subdued them, not because they naturally migrated to a stronger federal government.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:No, you misunderstand...the law of the land states that we will have a weaker national government and stronger state governments. In fact, it's quite clear on that subject.

I disagree, but in honesty am too tired out right now to properly debate that.

You don't believe the US Constitution outlines a weak federal government and strong state governments? I'd love to hear that argument.

I believe they each have different powers. However, when you argue that the states should be stronger than the federal government, it essentially means we have a puppet federal government. That was the war fought in the civil war. The Federal government has the right to dictate to the states. The states do not have the right to just succeed from the union. We would not have achieved the power we have today as 50 individual states.

Night Strike wrote: The reason you don't want the states to have more power is because the federal government has already subdued them, not because they naturally migrated to a stronger federal government.

Nah, the reason we don't want states to have more power is because the clusterfuck that'll be.



It's actually quite interesting this whole tea-party-moar-state-rights thing. Because surely if your problem is with a federal government meddling in everything the idea of splitting up that government in 50 governments who will meddle just as hard is a bizarre idea, right? Instead of a single government you can get angry at for speed-limits and environmental laws you get 50 governments all making up their own new laws and each time you so much as cross a state-line you have to deal with them. (The idea that there will be less rules can be dismissed easily due to the preponderance of christians and/or left-wingers in each state.)



You don't want state's rights. You want a very strong federal government that doesn't infringe.

Snorri1234 wrote:
You don't want state's rights. You want a very strong federal government that doesn't infringe.

Exactly... or more to the point, one that lets the big corporations infringe as much as they wish.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:
You don't want state's rights. You want a very strong federal government that doesn't infringe.

Exactly... or more to the point, one that lets the big corporations infringe as much as they wish.

Big corporations can't infringe. The Invisible Hand of The Free Market will see to that.


The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.



And of course all us libertarian blokes are totally going to come out on top because we are totes intelligent and don't rely on basic tests for our medicine and food.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:In order to answer the question of efficiencies, we'd need to gather data on what, exactly, the states do and what, exactly, the federal government does and how much each costs relative to the needs of the people of each state.

No one here is going to do that.

So, let's fall back on original intent (which no one else likes, but I do, so shove off)... was the original intent of the framers to have quasi-independent states (like BBS suggests) or a strong national government? The answer is, of course, the former. So, if the answer is that the original intent of the framers was to have quasi-independent states, why did they decide on this course? Was it for efficiency? Was it because they didn't trust a strong central government (like that crazy thegreekdog guy)?

Initially, combining multiple states with diverse interests was necessary and expedient. However, as time progressed, more and more needed to be unified. It culminated with the civil war. We have gone so far past what the "original intent" of the framers was that its essentially irrelevant. Back then, there were no trains, never mind planes and internet. When it took a week to get across some states, you could not expect things to be as united as they are today. Now, the reverse is true. Texas go to California, Maine and Alaska regularly. Plus, we go all over the world and people from all over come here daily.
Add in changes to banking, ideas about people's rights (women and minorities had none at our nation's inception).. and claims to tie us back to the dreams of the founders is restraining, not illuminating.

I don't find any of that to be a relevant argument against stronger states/weaker central government. It doesn't seem to me that trains, planes, the internet, travel time, ability to travel worldwide, banking changes, people's rights...none of that would need to be affected by such a move.

When it takes a week to just get a response for a letter, or several weeks to even just get congress together.. things take much longer. That directly impacted the nation's strength. But, it also made it more likely that states would have very different values, etc. People still do today, but not like back then.

I think ease of communication and travel is more of a reason why a central government can exert more control. I don't think it's a reason why a central government should exert more control.

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.

Right, exactly.

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.

Right, exactly.

As opposed to the utterly honest advertisements of for profit companies.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.

Right, exactly.

As opposed to the utterly honest advertisements of for profit companies.

Right, exactly.

I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.

Right, exactly.

As opposed to the utterly honest advertisements of for profit companies.

Right, exactly.

I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

Really? The government is the only thing keeping corporations from utterly stomping on us even more than they do.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:The fact that it hasn't done much in an almost-free market just means that the market isn't free enough yet! Once we get rid of all the agencies that try to stop misinformation and blatant lies we will achieve perfection.

Right, exactly.

As opposed to the utterly honest advertisements of for profit companies.

Right, exactly.

I'm not sure how one can argue the merits of government while at the same time lamenting the control of government by corporations. It's rather inconsistent.

Really? The government is the only thing keeping corporations from utterly stomping on us even more than they do.

So you don't think corporations control the government? Excellent... you can never use that argument again.