jmc wrote: 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.
So what common identity and purpose is our gov. currently giving us?
jmc wrote: 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.
So what common identity and purpose is our gov. currently giving us?
Broke and deep in debt?
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
major bean wrote: 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 left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
jmc wrote: 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.
So what common identity and purpose is our gov. currently giving us?
Broke and deep in debt?
So are most cities and states, even Park County.
But I did not make my original post clear. My point was that the rise of the U.S. as a world power came primarily after WW2, that also was the time when the increase in centralized power of the federal gov. happened(under both parties) My question was what world power did not have a strong central gov. Are they connected? Do we really want a decentralized system if history has shown that has never served a world power well?
A highly centralized government does not serve anything other than itself. It is a means of control over the people of that country. Nothing else.
Our country is the great experiment that took power from strongarm killers (kings) and gave it to the common man and the men of commerce.
There are no examples of our government that may be shown from history. We are an anomaly and you cannot point to history and say "See, it fits this mold".
major bean wrote: A highly centralized government does not serve anything other than itself. It is a means of control over the people of that country. Nothing else.
Our country is the great experiment that took power from strongarm killers (kings) and gave it to the common man and the men of commerce.
There are no examples of our government that may be shown from history. We are an anomaly and you cannot point to history and say "See, it fits this mold".
So you see no connection to the U.S's rise as a world power with the increase in the power of the feds?
Not at all. We were the most powerful country prior that WWI and WWII.
That is the reason that our entry into those two conflicts was so important to Europe. We were the power but did not wield the power.
The U.S. was the strongest man in the gym, but we were not participating in the weight lifting contest in which the other countries were competing. We were on the bench but that did not mean that we were not the strongest man (which was proven upon our entry).
Centralization did not create strength in the least. It has no association. Centralization came afterward.
major bean wrote: Not at all. We were the most powerful country prior that WWI and WWII.
That is the reason that our entry into those two conflicts was so important to Europe. We were the power but did not wield the power.
The U.S. was the strongest man in the gym, but we were not participating in the weight lifting contest in which the other countries were competing. We were on the bench but that did not mean that we were not the strongest man (which was proven upon our entry).
Centralization did not create strength in the least. It has no association. Centralization came afterward.
Strongest country prior to WW1 ? delusional thinking. Try reading some history from real historians. You made a blanket statement "Centralization did not create strength in the least" Prove it. Opinion only, yours.
First, you should prove your contention instead of resorting to the usual "sources, please". All of the history books will tell you that the importance of the U.S. entry into WWI was because we were the sleeping giant. It is grade school stuff. Duh!
major bean wrote: First, you should prove your contention instead of resorting to the usual "sources, please". All of the history books will tell you that the importance of the U.S. entry into WWI was because we were the sleeping giant. It is grade school stuff. Duh!
Perhaps that is the problem, if your understanding of history is from what they tought you in grade school, some further education on the subject might be in order. Just sayin....
