Do state governments = socialism?

[Catatonic]

It seems to me that most state governments are very socialist. I understand that most of what Dr. Paul talks about is in regards to the federal government and that the states should be left to govern as they see fit, but from a philosophical standpoint, what do you think of socialist state governments?

It seems to me that a socialist state government would work well as it would be more easily held accountable and controlled by the people, but what about all the moral arguments, like the immorality of taxing people to pay for things they disagree with?

If my state accepts that 51% of the population has approved a tax for something I have a moral objection to, is my only option to move to another state, assuming the country transformed to the jeffersonian vision of sovereign states?

 

[Kludge]

State governments are heavily manipulated by federal government through use of "fed funds".

The federal government holds states for ransom by taking their citizens' money and then only giving that money back if the state government meets certain requirements (sometimes requiring the state to raise more revenue) to get that money. The federal government essentially legislates on the state level by means of fed funds.

 

[Kludge]

That said... yeah, all state (and almost all local) governments I'm aware of are far more government than many of us (I imagine) are comfortable with.

 

[Bold As Love]

There is a lot of railing against the Federal Government as there should be...but too often we fail to recognize that these state and especially local governments are evil incarnate...even more corrupt and not at all responsive to the people...in fact they are the ones most responsible for dumbing down the population and maintaining power. Oh and when their party begins to wane, the simply switch to the other party. (TX is a classic example) Yet, the neo-con, pro-corporate, soul-less Repubs have no tea parties protesting THEM.

 

[BenIsForRon]

I think things like zoning are necessary in a complex society like ours. This is a role of local government. I don't know if I would call that socialist per se.

 

[jmdrake]

It seems to me that most state governments are very socialist. I understand that most of what Dr. Paul talks about is in regards to the federal government and that the states should be left to govern as they see fit, but from a philosophical standpoint, what do you think of socialist state governments?

It seems to me that a socialist state government would work well as it would be more easily held accountable and controlled by the people, but what about all the moral arguments, like the immorality of taxing people to pay for things they disagree with?

If my state accepts that 51% of the population has approved a tax for something I have a moral objection to, is my only option to move to another state, assuming the country transformed to the jeffersonian vision of sovereign states?

It all depends on the state. In some states raising taxes is extremely difficult. The fact is that most people don't like the idea of paying more money (surprise?) and will typically vote against tax increases all things being equal. Here's how it works in Alabama. (Or how it used to work when I lived there.) Some types of local taxes can't be increased without a statewide referendum. What that means is that even if a majority of people in county A support an increase because they want more money for project X, it can't pass without a majority of state voters. The way this works out is that most people outside of county A have never heard of project X and just see "tax increase" on their ballot and vote against it.

As for your other point, yes it's easier to hold state officials accountable. But most people don't even know who their state reps are nor what issues are before the state legislatures.