South Dakota abortion ban. Thoughts? - by fett
aguywhoplaysthief on 6/3/2006 at 06:54
Quote Posted by Nicker
Do you mean the freedom of the state to restrict people's freedoms freedom or the freedom to make your own choices type of freedom?
The freedom of governing bodies close to the desires of the people (state and local governments) to determine the best policies for their residents, and to set reasonable social community standards.
Agent Monkeysee on 6/3/2006 at 07:04
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
The freedom of governing bodies close to the desires of the people (state and local governments) to determine the best policies for their residents, and to set reasonable social community standards.
that's dum u r dum
aguywhoplaysthief on 6/3/2006 at 07:13
omg olol!11!!!
Jennie&Tim on 6/3/2006 at 15:05
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
The freedom of governing bodies close to the desires of the people (state and local governments) to determine the best policies for their residents, and to set reasonable social community standards.
So you disagree that the federal government should step in to protect the freedoms of individuals when the local communities violate those freedoms? Shall we allow local communities then to forbid, say, politically charged cartoons? Or, if the constitution protects a freedom, shall it be a federal issue even on a local level?
Personally, I believe there are freedoms that should not be subject to the will of the majority, which should be protected regardless of the whims of the mob.
Swiss Mercenary on 7/3/2006 at 00:53
I just don't understand anti-Federalists. Maybe its because the country that I live doesn't seem to have anyone half as crazy as some of those southern mouthpieces, but federalism seems to work fairly well here. Well, *well* as in, 'politics well'.
Unity is what makes America top dog. I just can't imagine that divisions between the states and the federal government being good for anyone. (Preachers of morality aside).
aguywhoplaysthief on 7/3/2006 at 05:59
Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim
So you disagree that the federal government should step in to protect the freedoms of individuals when the local communities violate those freedoms?
Depends on which freedoms you are talking about. I don't think that it is unreasonable for the federal government to ensure that basic protections (like freedom of movement, and well-established procedural rights) are...um...protected.
But if you think that branches of the federal government should be able to forbid state and local government from banning rape porn from being sold or rented in their town, or God-knows what other sacred "freedoms" we'll soon discover, no I don't agree.
Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim
Shall we allow local communities then to forbid, say, politically charged cartoons?
I don't think that it is completely unreasonable for the individual states to protect certain basic freedoms (like political speech) if they so choose.
Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim
Or, if the constitution protects a freedom, shall it be a federal issue even on a local level?
Ideally, I would like to see the Constitution protect far fewer "freedoms" in general. Like the freedom to force me to bankroll cruise ships for people I've never met and don't care about in some muggy mosquito-infested swampland.
Quote Posted by Jennie&Tim
Personally, I believe there are freedoms that should not be subject to the will of the majority, which should be protected regardless of the whims of the mob.
That's nice.
Personally, I feel far safer putting my rights in the hands of people who actually know me as opposed to some dipshit in D.C. anal-raping my paycheck every week.
The good thing about local governments is that it's pretty easy to leave if you don't like how things are run, and it's far easier to influence if things aren't to your liking. Even when facing large interests, you actually have a chance of making a difference on an individual/small group level. The only ones with a prayer of influencing the federal government are teacher's unions and military contractors.
Local governments can't (except in rare circumstances) force you to stay simply by the fact that there may not be anywhere else to go (unlike countries with borders and military police).
You want to live in a land of wacky liberals and be ruled by their funny ideas, you can move to Santa Clara County California. If you want to live with cracker rednecks, then you can move to Graham County North Carolina. Everyone is happy - no thousands of million-strong, angry consituencies completely fucking up the politics of an entire country.
300 million is a far bigger and more dangerous mob than 500 or 5,000 btw.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
I just don't understand anti-Federalists.
Clearly. Switzerland is the size of a small state. I find it thoroughly refreshing that a small country can govern their own affairs effectively, and continues to reject any major encroachments by foreign powers for simply the sake of power-mongering.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Unity is what makes America top dog.
Personally, I find unity rather concerning and try to avoid it most of the time.
Swiss Mercenary on 7/3/2006 at 06:38
It's Canada.
Gingerbread Man on 7/3/2006 at 07:22
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
300 million is a far bigger and more dangerous mob than 500 or 5,000 btw.
Bigger, obviously. More dangerous? Not even close. Small groups are way more unpredictable and cohesive than large ones, on the whole. That's precisely WHY states can have their own constitutions and law-making abilities -- within a certain sphere, of course.
aguywhoplaysthief on 7/3/2006 at 07:53
You're the cognitive scienty guy, so I'll generally defer to you on such matters, however the power that the federal government wields is far more dangerous than anything a city council could imagine. I'll agree with you that a city council, or State assembly, is going to be more unpredictable, but as far as danger goes, big groups (the feds) take the cake.
It's very easy to see and feel the consequences of actions when it is spread among a smaller group of people than it is when it is spread among a humongous group of people that you will never meet. I would argue that it is far easier for a group of people to seriously victimize someone 1000 miles away than someone 50 miles away, or 50 feet.
When you have huge masses of people, passing stupid and dangerous measures (like Social Security for example) are much easier to do since consequences are far more ephemeral.
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
It's Canada.
Then this:
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Maybe its because the country that I live doesn't seem to have anyone half as crazy as some of those southern mouthpieces
...clearly isn't the case.
Gingerbread Man on 7/3/2006 at 08:01
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
...however the power that the federal government wields is far more dangerous than anything a city council could imagine. I'll agree with you that a city council, or State assembly, is going to be more unpredictable, but as far as danger goes, big groups (the feds) take the cake.
Ah, but then what you're saying is that an even smaller group of people, motivated by ambition and -- let's face it -- greed (at least in that they want to retain their relatively cushy jobs with large cheques and wonderful pensions) respond to the loudest constituents. They don't respond to the masses, because the masses, well we don't really give a shit what happens in the nitty gritty so long as the trains run on time and our children have food.
The power of a federal government is broad and clumsy, and in that respect quite dangerous to be sure... Killing a bee with a stick of dynamite is never the smartest plan. But the dynamite doesn't get lit because eighty percent of the people in the room are hysterical over the bee, it gets lit because the guy with the dynamite listens to the loudest couple of people and assumes they speak for the majority.
The danger always lies in the decision-making. And a large group -- hell, even a few dozen people -- can't usually make a decision to save their lives. Literally.
