Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am glad that you have an open mind. Very refreshing when compared to most others posting on here. As for the inter-state highways, toll roads are a very simple, efficient solution to the question you pose. Asking for what would replace the Army Corp of Engineers is simple...nothing. They produce nothing of value that can be otherwise had much more efficiently by just about any local, state, or private institution.
What Federal property or function do you want to talk about? Be specific, and I am sure that any local, state, or private institution can function more efficiently.
The Federal Government is a failure. Just about nothing it does is of any value. The burden of proof is upon you, its supporters. Give evidence where the Federal Government is a success. I challenge you. I submit that it is a nearly complete failure.
I'm interested in knowing how you expect a poor state like Mississippi to manage without the federally managed levee system that helped avoid a total disaster last year when the river flooded. There was still widespread damage in large parts of the Mississippi River basin, but due to the opening of the Morganza Spillway, a greater catastrophe, like the one in 1927, was avoided. The river is vital for interstate commerce, but no one state has means to manage it.
Another function that would be difficult for the private sector to provide is the management of natural disasters of the scale such as Hurricane Katrina, which the federal government completely botched. Do you think that private institutions and local governments could have done a better job? Even BP, with their deep pocket, hasn't done a bang-up job repairing the damage that they caused, and that wasn't even a natural disaster.
Would you sell off the assets of the federal government to the highest bidder? What if there were no takers? In theory what you are proposing sounds good, but the Founding Fathers knew that things would change, so they made the system amendable. Remember that every law and every government function that came about after the creation of the nation went through the constitutional process, which means that they were agreed upon by a majority of the representatives in order to become the law of the land.
Finally, I've been racking my brains to think of any nation outside the third world that does not have a federal system and infrastructure. I can't think of any. Where is a working model of the system that you propose?
I'm interested in knowing how you expect a poor state like Mississippi to manage without the federally managed levee system that helped avoid a total disaster last year when the river flooded. There was still widespread damage in large parts of the Mississippi River basin, but due to the opening of the Morganza Spillway, a greater catastrophe, like the one in 1927, was avoided. The river is vital for interstate commerce, but no one state has means to manage it.
Mississippians can get off their collective butts and build it themselves. They shouldn't expect the Federal government to steal money from one set of people to give it to another set of people. There is NO need for almost all of the Federal Government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge
Another function that would be difficult for the private sector to provide is the management of natural disasters of the scale such as Hurricane Katrina, which the federal government completely botched. Do you think that private institutions and local governments could have done a better job? Even BP, with their deep pocket, hasn't done a bang-up job repairing the damage that they caused, and that wasn't even a natural disaster.
BP was given a pass BY the Federal Government. Federal Government backing only creates moral hazard, which is actually at the core of most of the problems created by the Federal Government.
And, didn't you just admit how inept the Federal Government is? Why defend it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge
Would you sell off the assets of the federal government to the highest bidder? What if there were no takers? In theory what you are proposing sounds good, but the Founding Fathers knew that things would change, so they made the system amendable. Remember that every law and every government function that came about after the creation of the nation went through the constitutional process, which means that they were agreed upon by a majority of the representatives in order to become the law of the land.
Yes, they made it amendable, but not re-interpretable. That is the big difference. The Constitution has been subverted because of this mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lhpartridge
Finally, I've been racking my brains to think of any nation outside the third world that does not have a federal system and infrastructure. I can't think of any. Where is a working model of the system that you propose?
There is no need for almost all of the Federal Government, least of which is "Federal Infrastructure". We have State, and Local governments, and the private sector to do things much more efficiently than the Federal Government. The postal service is a prime example. Even railroads, etc etc etc. You need to think outside the cage.
You made the argument that the Internet was created by DARPANET...Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. If they didn't do it for our DEFENSE, why would the DEFENSE Department create it? Maybe you are saying that the DEFENSE Department is Illogical, and not doing things for our Common DEFENSE?
If they made it exclusively for our defense then it wouldn't be used by the public! Just explain how the hell does our use of the Internet for Facebook, to buy presents for the holidays, yada yada, have anything to do with the defense of the country?
Your logic, such as it is, somehow means that any citizen could walk onto a military base, pick up what they needed, pay a rental fee of some kind, and use it. Maybe in whatever parallel universe you live in, that may happen. In the real world it doesn't. The military has excess gear which they get rid of and sell to the public. Does that mean that they're doing that to get you ready for the common defense, whatever the hell that means. Once it goes into the retail market it becomes a public good, such as roads and water/dam projects which are used by the public. Yes there is a military aspect because they use public infrastructure, but that doesn't negate the private use of that infrastructure. The same thing with the net, it has both military and civilian purposes. And they are different, unless you're claiming that what you're posting has some military rationale, though I don't think even you would attempt to say that.
But lets pick up on your theme of the Common Defense, such as it is. Before the military can use the Internet, their people have to be number/word literate. If so then they need to have attained a certain amount of education in order to be such. Then they would have to create schools in order to assure that those standards are met. So again the FEDS would have to be in the education business to meet your Common Defense mandate by having educated soldiers.
And moreover, the Common Defense would mean that soldiers would also need a certain level of health in order to be in the military. One of the main problems which plagued the military prior to WW2 was finding enough soldiers who were healthy enough to be able to fight. Maybe you heard of something called the Great Depression, where millions of people were malnourished and in poor health. Keeping with your logic then it would be the FEDS responsibility to get their citizens ready to be soldiers by assuring that they were healthy. The "free market" failed to do that by not being able to create a stable economy which could assure people of a beneficial standard of living, so as to be healthy.
I'm sorry, but I've tried to be as civil and polite as possible, but again, what you're posting is straight up irrational. The Common Defense means any number of things, not just the narrow definition of what you claim it may be. You can't pick and choose what you think it is, if it is a common defense then it means that it must come from the commonwealth.
Mississippians can get off their collective butts and build it themselves. They shouldn't expect the Federal government to steal money from one set of people to give it to another set of people. There is NO need for almost all of the Federal Government.
Perhaps you missed it, but the flood affected most of the states in the southern half of the Mississippi River basin, not even primarily Mississippi. I believe that Missouri was the worst hit, but I don't recall.
Quote:
BP was given a pass BY the Federal Government. Federal Government backing only creates moral hazard, which is actually at the core of most of the problems created by the Federal Government.
And, didn't you just admit how inept the Federal Government is? Why defend it?
I'm not defending it. I just don't know what the alternative would be. It's fine to say what we don't need, but your continuing failure to offer an alternative is becoming tiresome, at best.
Quote:
Yes, they made it amendable, but not re-interpretable. That is the big difference. The Constitution has been subverted because of this mistake.
What mistake are you referencing? The amendability of the Constitution? Who subverted the Constitution? The elected officials? The courts? The executive branch?
Quote:
There is no need for almost all of the Federal Government, least of which is "Federal Infrastructure". We have State, and Local governments, and the private sector to do things much more efficiently than the Federal Government. The postal service is a prime example. Even railroads, etc etc etc. You need to think outside the cage.
I am and always have been a free thinker. It is part of my nature to think outside the cage, as you put it. If I recall correctly, the postal service was one of the functions that the founding fathers created, even pre-dating the American Revolution, I believe. Railroads have been privately owned an operated since their inception, with the exception of Amtrak. I am not opposed to privatization of passenger rail service at all. There are other government functions, though, that would be problematic to privatize, as we see with the rise of private prisons, which serve as an incentive to incarcerate as many people as possible in order for the system to make a profit.
The other questions that you haven't addressed, except to say that there is no need for a federal government, are those of how to dispose of the property that the federal government currently owns, and which countries provide a realistic model for the private management of the functions that our federal government presently manages. The longer you delay in addressing those questions, the less credible your point becomes. It is one thing to say that education should be privatized. It is another to call for the dismantling of our federal management and infrastructure systems without proposing any replacement for them.
Last edited by lhpartridge; 02-12-2012 at 09:46 AM..
Reason: clean up quotations
I am sorry, but you make lots of claims without any substantiation. Please provide at least one factual evidence for your claims. How are the FEDS playing a role in the establishment of airports? If they do fund anything, it is AGAIN...done through stealing. That doesn't make it right or a good thing.
Your posts have assured me that you have little understanding of how much the FEDS affect our lives. And when I told you to go to the NIH site in order to get information in order so that you can get up to speed, you refused. I'm not going to do anymore of your work in order to get you up to speed. Figure it out, if you can spend time posting this stuff, then you have more than enough time to get somewhat aware.....
I am glad that you have an open mind. Very refreshing when compared to most others posting on here. As for the inter-state highways, toll roads are a very simple, efficient solution to the question you pose. Asking for what would replace the Army Corp of Engineers is simple...nothing. They produce nothing of value that can be otherwise had much more efficiently by just about any local, state, or private institution.
What Federal property or function do you want to talk about? Be specific, and I am sure that any local, state, or private institution can function more efficiently.
The Federal Government is a failure. Just about nothing it does is of any value. The burden of proof is upon you, its supporters. Give evidence where the Federal Government is a success. I challenge you. I submit that it is a nearly complete failure.
Tolls on roads that were already built, I presume. Or would you destroy the current roads to place a new system of toll roads in the nation.
Regulating pollution cannot effectively be accomplished locally and businesses have no incentive to do so in the short term because more pollutants may lead to higher profits. The problem though is the health costs to others in society. The destruction of our environment in the short term may create high profits for the ceos, but our children will suffer the consequences.
Tolls on roads that were already built, I presume. Or would you destroy the current roads to place a new system of toll roads in the nation.
Regulating pollution cannot effectively be accomplished locally and businesses have no incentive to do so in the short term because more pollutants may lead to higher profits. The problem though is the health costs to others in society. The destruction of our environment in the short term may create high profits for the ceos, but our children will suffer the consequences.
Good point. You can't charge the toll until the road is built....unless you collect taxes to build the road, lol.
There is PLENTY of time right now, but it is wasted teaching things in school that have no business being taught in school.
Do not send your children to Federal re-education camps!
I must agree.
There was a time when schools focused on academics and left the other stuff, like 'electives' to children and their family to pursue on their own time (and on their own dime). If we spent the 8 hours that kids are in school teaching differentiated learning in the core classes, I think that would be a huge step forward. I can count the seconds until someone posts ""what about those poor children whose parents aren't willing to spend money for art, music, football, robotics, etc.". This is precisely why education should be privatized, so that PARENTS can decide to stick with the purely academic model, or choose a performing arts school, an athletic oriented school, a language immersion school, religious school, or whatever.
There was a time when schools focused on academics and left the other stuff, like 'electives' to children and their family to pursue on their own time (and on their own dime). If we spent the 8 hours that kids are in school teaching differentiated learning in the core classes, I think that would be a huge step forward. I can count the seconds until someone posts ""what about those poor children whose parents aren't willing to spend money for art, music, football, robotics, etc.". This is precisely why education should be privatized, so that PARENTS can decide to stick with the purely academic model, or choose a performing arts school, an athletic oriented school, a language immersion school, religious school, or whatever.
There was a time when schools were run only by the churches and most families hired governesses and subject masters to teach lessons to their children at home. There were no child labor laws, so the children of the poor began pulling their weight economically as soon as they were able. If there parents died, then they were on their own, unless they were taken in by orphanages or shipped off to be adopted by families who needed the help. The orphan trains of the American west and Australia come to mind.
The country benefits from having an educated electorate, according to Thomas Jefferson. The country benefits from having a combat-ready draft pool, according to the lunch program which was instituted to fatten up draftees after World War II, when it was discovered that too many young men were underweight for fighting condition. Now we have too many who are overweight or obese, which also affects our ability to be combat ready.
Assuming that schools should be privatized, who would take over the physical plants of the schools in operation now?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
