jmc wrote: I would take Europe over any tribalised country...... Prove my point wrong.
Europe is a country? Ha ha your'e wrong! LOL
Got me Joe, Western European countries. ( I am corrected) Soviets failed because they cobbled together Poland, Germany ,Slovakia etc. We are one country not a bunch of separate ones taken over by the feds. Big diff. IMO.
Why do you mix these other topics with weak central government? Is a state voting for these things any different than a central government doing so? Weak or strong. Get back on topic.
daisypusher wrote: Why do you mix these other topics with weak central government? Is a state voting for these things any different than a central government doing so? Weak or strong. Get back on topic.
To me it makes a big difference, we have an executive branch along with congress, that represents the voters of each state. We are stronger as one country rather than a collection of individual states, again it's a matter of balance.Too much state independence makes for a weak country. IMO.
Then we need a strong central government to "stop states from slavery, polygamy or denied woman the vote"? So the strong central government is to enforce its will on the people who would otherwise get out of line?
daisypusher wrote: Then we need a strong central government to "stop states from slavery, polygamy or denied woman the vote"? So the strong central government is to enforce its will on the people who would otherwise get out of line?
No , a strong central gov. gives a country a common identity and purpose. Makes for a stronger country. Just better than the alternative. Need to go but happy to pick up the discussion tomorrow.
A strong government need not be big, wasteful or centralized. This is what America should be. Only issues that apply to all states should be dealt with as one. Alaska has no right to impose its will on any other state and vice versa.
If you are an ant in an anthill or a bee in a hive, then sure go for the strong central government so the individual has no purpose except for the good of the whole.
China is a good example of this. Your decisions of how you live your life, how many children that you have, your location is all decided by some other person who has set himself up as your superior. And he holds this power by the means of killing you or imprisoning you.
Soviet Union is another example. Its inclusion of the satelite countries did not cause its downfall, rather it extended its miserable life.
The framers of our Constitution thought of the right to declare war and included it into the Constitution. Not that anyone wants to read the Constitution anymore. So that question is not based upon the reality of our Federation.
Our form of government was set up to regulate dealings between states to make the dealings equitable. It was not set up to have supreme power of the states.
The Federal Government is supposed to unite the states, to give them a common framework from which to build. It is then up to the States to build upon that framework in order to implement the laws. The federal government should have jurisdiction on interstate and international issues. The Federal government should not have jurisdiction on local issues.
The CEO of a company does not want to see each individual's status report and time sheet. They want to know overall numbers from Production, Sales, Marketing, HR and Legal. They make sure the divisions are working well together and communicating well - and implementing the overall vision of the company. The CEO doesn't decide how much a mail clerk should be paid, or what route they should take to deliver the interoffice memos.
For example:The Federal government should not tax us directly. They should tax the states.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
LOL
