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 the old saying goes, power is easy to give away, but quite hard to take back.
We've let the federal government control things they have no business controlling. Drugs, just as an example, where in the constitution does it say that I can't posses a plant that grows naturally in my yard? If I'm not selling it, then its not interstate commerce, so they have no damned business what so ever.
I do have to disagree with you on one thing, the GOP doesn't give a damn about states rights or limited constitutional power. They'd love to outlaw abortion, pornography, and crack down on other religions they deem "evil".
GOP and Democrats are just the opposite side of the same coin. They may differ on what they support, but they both want more power.
i agree with your post but i make one distinction with the left on this issue and that has to do with economic liberties. i've highlighted your words. this is an important difference between today's left/liberals and libertarians. i don't draw a distinction between your freedom and your freedom to make a living. i don't see why someone who grows marijuana shouldn't be able to sell it. i also don't see whu someone who grows tobacco or distills alcohol shouldn't be able to sell it. willing buyer, willing seller imo
i agree with your post but i make one distinction with the left on this issue and that has to do with economic liberties. i've highlighted your words. this is an important difference between today's left/liberals and libertarians. i don't draw a distinction between your freedom and your freedom to make a living. i don't see why someone who grows marijuana shouldn't be able to sell it. i also don't see whu someone who grows tobacco or distills alcohol shouldn't be able to sell it. willing buyer, willing seller imo
I agree with you, but the constitution clearly gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. But it does not give them the power to make a plant or substance illegal. They can legally forbid the sale and distribution, but when they made it illegal to posses, that crossed the legal limit. I don't think anyone has challenged the drug laws on this standard, but there is precedent to back it up. Which is another reason why I hate precedents. Just because one idiot jumps off a cliff, doesn't mean we all have to follow them.
i agree with your post but i make one distinction with the left on this issue and that has to do with economic liberties. i've highlighted your words. this is an important difference between today's left/liberals and libertarians. i don't draw a distinction between your freedom and your freedom to make a living. i don't see why someone who grows marijuana shouldn't be able to sell it. i also don't see whu someone who grows tobacco or distills alcohol shouldn't be able to sell it. willing buyer, willing seller imo
Perhaps the distinction you're trying to make is that government has no role in regulating commerce (state/local government within state, federal interstate) is a libertarian stand, while leftists like me prefer regulating commerce while an individual can choose to consume as they wish without being dictated by the government.
I don't think you grasp the kind of legal and economic chaos you are promoting.
europe before the lisbon treaty is the type of legal and economic chaos i'm promoting. independent states, free flow of people and trade ie common market, but all with their own independent govts. i lived through it before they tried to turn brussels into the european vesrion of DC. it was pure hell i tell you
europe before the lisbon treaty is the type of legal and economic chaos i'm promoting. independent states, free flow of people and trade ie common market, but all with their own independent govts. i lived through it before they tried to turn brussels into the european vesrion of DC. it was pure hell i tell you
I'm not sure what works in Europe would work here.
Plus, being from Florida, I don't have a great deal of confidence in state government.
I disagree with your opinion that a liberal/progressive doesn’t put an individual over state or even above the nation. On the issue of collectivism, however, the disagreement wouldn’t be quite as clear because it isn’t just liberals that choose to live in a society under a banner, at state level or nation. Being an American makes you and me, under many common goals, a flag, anthem, government… very much proponents of collectivism.
Individual rights being protected allow Amish to exist just fine. The problem these other irate individuals make of 'collectivism' is that it fails to live up to their individual preference of how free society is permitted to operate. Social conservatives have done a very poor job articulating their position. I believe they have some truth but they're unfortunately prone to bury that point with excessive embellishment overselling their point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You’re proving my point, once again. You’re about state’s rights. I favor individual rights. Most states today are larger than the nation was at its foundation. The problems that were seen at federal level then, apply today to state level as well. But, the constitution and consequently the government, exists for the people, not for federal or state boundaries.
Boundary disputes pure and simple. Our government/ juris prudence currently respects the 'rights' of abstract entities far more than individual rights. Would people keep their language restricted to that framework there would be far less intellectual littering going on in this forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
And your argument makes no sense as states do have the authority (sometimes oppressive against the people) to frame and execute their own laws, while the federal government provides a baseline, an umbrella. Take health care reform, for example. It allows states to meet federal goals in any way they choose. Some states have chosen to explore single payer system, others can go about devising theirs. Why do you think that is a bad idea?
I think that example is a poor one but I'll go along with it to illustrate how special interests AKA "privatized" legislation undermines good governance. The checks and balances of governance have been breached through lobbyist door.
Health care reform needed to reform insurance industry having nothing but incentives to maximally bilk. It needed to address root causes of health care dysfunction, which includes the powers that be limiting how many doctors are in America and how much that education costs. Pharma- when it's more profitable to spend R&D money on the captive chains of symptom management, ignore the root cause of disease perpetuating illness, when they don't bother producing cures, it's no longer health care. It's a whole other disease divorced from ethical considerations. The integrity of the professions are compromised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Perhaps you think the model, under Articles of Confederation where states were virtually free of anything, was better in that they had no accountability to the federal government? Why do you think the article of confederation was replaced with the US constitution?
Because Kansas et al. didn't care to be blamed for South Carolina's act of piracy hiding beneath the American flag declaring war on 3 other sovereign nations colonized in the Carribean? Eye teeth being what they are...
Is a nation an example of collectivism, and you a part of it? Is state an example of collectivism? Is identifying self with ANY group, political, economic, social, religious, cultural, employment or whatever an example of collectivism? You bet! And you're a collectivist without the guts to accept that reality.
once again off topic and i don't feel like going into this so here's a video:
the patriot act would've been nullified. obamacare too. medicare, medicaid, no child left behind, social security, the federal drug war.
Patriot act, for sure, but coincidentally, usually those who scream states' rights the most are among the staunch supporters of it.
Health care, education and social safety nets... under what provision. Perhaps we should not skip but also look at the ninth amendment?
PS. On collectivism... no amount of denial and presenting video can override the common sense that collectivism is part and parcel, if you choose to be a part of any group sharing ideologies and for benefiting from it.
the patriot act would've been nullified. obamacare too. medicare, medicaid, no child left behind, social security, the federal drug war.
And you hate all of these things?
I can agree with you to a point here, but like I asked the other poster, what happens to equal protection and civil rights in general if the state laws and constitutions can depart significantly from the Federal Bill of Rights?
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.
