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.
As was back then and part of the reason only property owners could vote.
It shouldn't take a lot of wealth for people to realize what is in their best person. In some crazy collective you come from, apparently, you succumb to the idea that only the rich ought to protect their interests and rule. That spells my fundamental problem with "conservatism".
So you defense is to blame feds even for blasphemy that exists within states, which you tried to hide. With restrictive laws implemented by states (likely driven by religiosity) to such sales are a separate issue from federal law against serving alcohol to under 21. They should be treated as such, and BOTH are wrong, proving once again that you can blame federal government as much as you want, but the same problem does exist at ANY level of government. Consequently, as a people we ought to find the policies, not transfer the issue from one government to another.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
I am simply stating that, there will be some governments(people) who believe that there should be harsh restrictions on the sale of alcohol. And there will be some governments(people) who believe that there should be relatively no restrictions on the sale of alcohol. But who is right and who is wrong? Is there any way to actually know?
If there comes a situation where it is impossible for anyone to agree, who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Is it really better in a situation of a lack of agreement on right and wrong to put all authority in a central government? Where 51% can effectively rule over the other 49%. Or, would it not be better in a situation of unclear morality to allow for a spectrum of difference to exist in localized governments, so people are left with choice and the possibility of freedom by "voting with their feet"?
i don't see why this cannot be done. imo the common market in europe was hugely successful. the problems started when they insisted on legislating from brussels as we today dictate from dc.
You are misinformed and probably never lived in Europe. The EU is a failure and in my opinion it will be dissolved in the future (starting with the Euro first).
Not really. My point was to bring home a reality that independent states turned out to be a flop, even with few people. So, what makes a revival of the same, guarantee a different result this time around? There's a reason for US Constitution to exist, and it wasn't because states were lacking power. It was because the central government didn't with Articles of Confederation.
Your question doesn't even seem serious. Do you honestly think that many of the states and even many cities couldn't function independently in this day and age without federal oversight?
And you never addressed the general point that people have the right to self determination. You disagree with that? Were you against Southern Sudan's independence? How about the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia?
Your question doesn't even seem serious. Do you honestly think that many of the states and even many cities couldn't function independently in this day and age without federal oversight?
Some might, perhaps, function as independent nations and others might not depending on how you define "function", but clearly within a national compact many states (mostly red in nature) would have significant difficulty functioning at present levels without federal largesse. I would also hasten to add, that peace and tranquility between states might come into serious question, if you ignore the potential for conflict over borders, water and other natural resources rose to the the for. Of course those competing interest were also the basis for scrapping the Articles of Confederation as states enacted onerous tariffs and and regulations that impeded the economic interest of neighboring states. Such conflicts, as history is replete to show, have been the root cause for wars and other acts of violence throughout history.
Quote:
And you never addressed the general point that people have the right to self determination. You disagree with that? Were you against Southern Sudan's independence? How about the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia?
Of course people have the right to self determination and unlike Czechoslovakia and Sudan which were born out of force and violence, The People of the United States have chosen for more than 200 years to live in a social compact under a central federal government.
All that is simply based on wishful thinking. The reality was tried following independence and the people fell on their face. It is why the US Constitution came about, and transferred more power into the hands of the central government. States proved their incompetence at assuring freedoms to the people, and gave more power to the Federalists. And that was at a time when the entire nation had fewer people than many cities today.
I am simply stating that, there will be some governments(people) who believe that there should be harsh restrictions on the sale of alcohol. And there will be some governments(people) who believe that there should be relatively no restrictions on the sale of alcohol. But who is right and who is wrong? Is there any way to actually know?
Correct. And in the area of lifestyle choices there is no right or wrong. Just preferences.
That's why those laws should be at the lowest level possible.
We should never have let the Federal government get so much power. There is no reason on God's Green Earth that the Federal Government should tell 300 million people how fast they can drive or what they can eat, drink or smoke.
i don't see why this cannot be done. imo the common market in europe was hugely successful. the problems started when they insisted on legislating from brussels as we today dictate from dc.
texans want californian kids to be taught creationism and californians want texan kids to be taught evolution. new yorkers want universal health, new hampshire citizens want free market care. why not give the states the power to govern themselves instead of forcing everyone to accept federal rule. the feds can look after defense (not offense btw), and leave the rest up to states.
There is no reason on God's Green Earth that the Federal Government should tell 300 million people how fast they can drive or what they can eat, drink or smoke.
Which is why that it doesn't. You can drive as fast as you want on a privately financed or state financed road for that matter, you can eat, or drink whatever you like no one is stopping you. As for smoke... well you got me on that one.
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.
