Tweet
I've been thinking about this a lot the last week... what started me down this line of reasoning was this thought:
People in New York tend to be pro abortion and people in North Carolina tend to be anti abortion. HOWEVER what decides if abortion is legal in each respective state is not the people of that state, but the senate.
Imposing your will on others is tyrnnical.
Why do people in far away places, get to decide how OTHER people in far away places get to live?
The more I think about it, the more attractive it sounds..... lets cripple the federal government!
Strip the federal government of *ALL* powers except for the following:
1. Standardizing commerce(including international tariffs and foreign trade).
2. Standardizing communication(mail, phones etc).
3. Standardizing transportation(national highway system, rail, planes, boats etc)
4. Foreign policy(including organizing for mutual defence, the president can still declare limited war, this also includes immigration)
The role of the president diminishes, tremendously. He is still the commander and chief of the armed forces and the chief diplomat but his scope is also limited to the same scope the federal legislature has been limited to. For emergencies he can be voted emergency powers by the legislature, just like now.
The president was originally supposed to be a mostly unimportant figure-lets make it that way again.
The federal government is stripped of the ability to make any sort of laws or policy except for those that directly effect one of those four qualifications.
Benefits(among many):
In no particular order......
1. Large political partys disappear, or actually becomes responsive to the people, OVERNIGHT. The existence of the democratic and the republican party as the power brokers means that they have TREMENDOUS control over nominating who you get to vote on. The problem of patronage(in this instance defined as helping other people, simply because they are in the party) does not disappear but it is significantly crippled. Due to the different priorities and desires of different states, if the democrats and republicans do not implode, which actually seems unlikely, they would bend to become more responsive to the people.
2. Accountability. Right now, our high officials in the senate essentially have no accountability. There are so many of their constituents that the only way their actions matter is if they make a huge mistake which directly effects the voters, OR opposition groups run a smear campaign to make their stupidity known to the public. Individual unhappy voters really don't count for squat as far as our higher government officials are concerned.
If the federal legislature is suddenly unimportant and the state legislature is what matters, representatives elected to the state legislature represent a FAR smaller number of people-pissed off voters start to matter. More importantly the districts for each person is smaller so attempts to sway the public is possible without a massive bankroll, sine it is easier to spread a message over a small area and to a few people, then over a large area and to many people. People can now effect government WITHOUT the collaboration of the media.
3. Increased freedom. Freedom is always a good thing. NOW, people in New York set policy for... PEOPLE IN NEW YORK. People in Nebraska set policy for PEOPLE IN NEBRASKA. People in Hawaii decide how people in Hawaii live and people in Kansas decide how people in Kansas live. People have a more direct say in how they live their lives-this is always a good thing. Political views tend to be geographically homogeneous and while cities tend to be more liberal then rural areas, states as a whole are more politically homogeneous then other states.
One of the criticisms I think will immediately come up(thanks eldrich for pointing this out) is what if Georgia passes a law that makes lynching legal? For this system to work, state governments would have to restructure themselves, including a state constitution which inherits many of the rights given by the constitution(like the right to life). If Georgia wants to make lynching legal and Georgians don't like that they can A. get new officials(now possible, since officials are possible!) and B. appeal to the state supreme court. In a worst case scenario, freedom to make laws includes the freedom to #### up, same as the current system.
Thoughts?
People in New York tend to be pro abortion and people in North Carolina tend to be anti abortion. HOWEVER what decides if abortion is legal in each respective state is not the people of that state, but the senate.
Imposing your will on others is tyrnnical.
Why do people in far away places, get to decide how OTHER people in far away places get to live?
The more I think about it, the more attractive it sounds..... lets cripple the federal government!
Strip the federal government of *ALL* powers except for the following:
1. Standardizing commerce(including international tariffs and foreign trade).
2. Standardizing communication(mail, phones etc).
3. Standardizing transportation(national highway system, rail, planes, boats etc)
4. Foreign policy(including organizing for mutual defence, the president can still declare limited war, this also includes immigration)
The role of the president diminishes, tremendously. He is still the commander and chief of the armed forces and the chief diplomat but his scope is also limited to the same scope the federal legislature has been limited to. For emergencies he can be voted emergency powers by the legislature, just like now.
The president was originally supposed to be a mostly unimportant figure-lets make it that way again.
The federal government is stripped of the ability to make any sort of laws or policy except for those that directly effect one of those four qualifications.
Benefits(among many):
In no particular order......
1. Large political partys disappear, or actually becomes responsive to the people, OVERNIGHT. The existence of the democratic and the republican party as the power brokers means that they have TREMENDOUS control over nominating who you get to vote on. The problem of patronage(in this instance defined as helping other people, simply because they are in the party) does not disappear but it is significantly crippled. Due to the different priorities and desires of different states, if the democrats and republicans do not implode, which actually seems unlikely, they would bend to become more responsive to the people.
2. Accountability. Right now, our high officials in the senate essentially have no accountability. There are so many of their constituents that the only way their actions matter is if they make a huge mistake which directly effects the voters, OR opposition groups run a smear campaign to make their stupidity known to the public. Individual unhappy voters really don't count for squat as far as our higher government officials are concerned.
If the federal legislature is suddenly unimportant and the state legislature is what matters, representatives elected to the state legislature represent a FAR smaller number of people-pissed off voters start to matter. More importantly the districts for each person is smaller so attempts to sway the public is possible without a massive bankroll, sine it is easier to spread a message over a small area and to a few people, then over a large area and to many people. People can now effect government WITHOUT the collaboration of the media.
3. Increased freedom. Freedom is always a good thing. NOW, people in New York set policy for... PEOPLE IN NEW YORK. People in Nebraska set policy for PEOPLE IN NEBRASKA. People in Hawaii decide how people in Hawaii live and people in Kansas decide how people in Kansas live. People have a more direct say in how they live their lives-this is always a good thing. Political views tend to be geographically homogeneous and while cities tend to be more liberal then rural areas, states as a whole are more politically homogeneous then other states.
One of the criticisms I think will immediately come up(thanks eldrich for pointing this out) is what if Georgia passes a law that makes lynching legal? For this system to work, state governments would have to restructure themselves, including a state constitution which inherits many of the rights given by the constitution(like the right to life). If Georgia wants to make lynching legal and Georgians don't like that they can A. get new officials(now possible, since officials are possible!) and B. appeal to the state supreme court. In a worst case scenario, freedom to make laws includes the freedom to #### up, same as the current system.
Thoughts?
Comment