State V. Federal Gov
- Thread starter minitri97
- Start date
TonySutton
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,038
The closer you are to the decision making process the more voice you have.
give me a break, you think I have a relevant say in what the State government does?
RSLudlum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,582
same goes for your money...the closer you keep your money to you the more control you have over what it gets spent on
You have much more of a say at the state level than the federal level because of the reasons previously mentioned and because there is competition between states. The US is a very large country with a remarkable amount of cultural variation between regions. If you don't like the way the government is doing business in your state you can pick up and move to another state. Consider the difference between states like California, Alaska, South Carolina and Nevada. There is a pretty big different in taxes, social policy, welfare, etc. Using one of your examples, there are states with motorcycle helmet laws, and states without. There would be even more states without if the federal government wasn't in the business of selectively doling out highway funds to the states in exchange for unifying dui laws, helmet laws, speed limits, etc.
Several differences come immediately to mind: (1) theoretical and (2) practical.
Theoretical Differences:
The smaller the Sovereign, the more power you have over it as an individual. For example, suppose that you live in a State which prohibits gambling / prostitution. Suppose that you are opposed to this prohibition. You could contact a state representative, or feasibly run for office yourself. As a last resort, you could simply pack up your bags and move to another State with more hospitable laws.
With the federal government, this option simply isn't plausible. Your vote / voice in the political process is diluted by all the people in other States. Moving away to another State will not improve your prospects, since those States are bound under the Supremacy Clause to obey the Federal Soverign. You are effectively "stuck" with obeying the Federal law.
Practical Differences:
Federal enforcement schemes also tend to be different than State enforcement schemes. Although there are exceptions, federal criminal statutes generally impose much harsher penalties than their State law equivalents (see, e.g. drug laws).
On the flip side, federal laws are not enforced regularly, since the federal government's resources are quite limited. They are not, for example, going to have the manpower to prosecute all drug distributors under federal statutes.
JeNNiF00F00
Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 2,178
An example would be: California state law allows medical cannabis, however the Feds jump in and literally override the states and arrests these people as criminals even though they have medical prescriptions from doctors. We are talking about people with cancer and AIDS and other valid illnesses. This should not even be an issue. If it was all about the state govt., the Feds would not have much power in telling them how to run the state as they do now. This goes for EVERYTHING.
Please point me to which state has a governor and legislatures that are members of the middle class. Or for that matter, please let me know which state I can go to where there are leaders that are not lawyers, insurance, doctors, or other Bourgeoisie or higher folks.
TonySutton
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,038
you seem to have given up so you have no voice at all.
If we look at rough estimates there are 535 members of congress and the US population is approx 300 million. This means every member of congress is representing over a half million people.
In my state of Ohio there are 132 members in the General Assembly and the population is about 11.5 million. This means every member of the General Assembly is representing over 85000 people.
In my city of Amherst there are 7 members on the council and the population is about 12000. This means every member of the council is representing around 1600 people.
Yes, I have more voice in my city than I do at the state level.
Yes, I have more voice in my state than I do at the federal level.
While this system works well in theory, as long as you have a fiat currency system and associated central bank, you will never achieve good representation in practice.
To use Austrian economics, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Fiat money in control of private bankers subsidizes corrupt politicans, therefore we get more of them.
Just like the issue with immigration and ending birthright citizenship, we need to remove the incentive for corrupt politicans to enter office in the first place. This is accomplished by switching to sound currency.
There are lots of injustices in this country, and a huge list of problems. But at the foundation, the MAIN problem is the manipulated money system that we have. All else (war, corruption, greed) springs from this issue.
Sound currency forms the pillars of a just society.
To use Austrian economics, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Fiat money in control of private bankers subsidizes corrupt politicans, therefore we get more of them.
Just like the issue with immigration and ending birthright citizenship, we need to remove the incentive for corrupt politicans to enter office in the first place. This is accomplished by switching to sound currency.
There are lots of injustices in this country, and a huge list of problems. But at the foundation, the MAIN problem is the manipulated money system that we have. All else (war, corruption, greed) springs from this issue.
Sound currency forms the pillars of a just society.
Lets say I have $1 dollar. When there are $500000 in play, I am poor. If there are $85000 dollars in play, I am certainly not quite as poor, but still pretty poor.
I can't point you to a state run by the middle class because poor people and the middle class do not trust their own to lead them. There are those who are good leaders and those who are good followers and most people recognize that, which is why the people continue to vote the way they do. In a capitalist society those with leadership ability naturally ascend to positions of wealth and power, while those who lack that ability spend their time in front of the TV watching celebrity news and MTV cribs and wondering why they can't live that life.
So I can't point you to an egalitarian, socialistic state in the United States like you are seeking, but if I could it would most likely resemble the former USSR, with long bread lines full of hapless peasants who in theory "own the means of production", which are currently failing to produce enough to feed them. I can, however, point you to states that have differing laws on many things. Nevada, for example, allows gambling, prostitution, smoking in bars and restaurants and has no state taxes. If the federal government was out of the picture, as I mentioned earlier, there would be even greater diversity.
Last edited:
TonySutton
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,038
If you give away your dollar then you are poorest of all. Every vote counts, if you do not believe this, then they have won and you have lost. No one can take away your freedom until you give it up.
nate895
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 12,091
The difference is that the State Constitution regulates what the State government does. Check out your state's Constitution, and it probably contains a bill of rights. Any controversial legislation can be brought up to a vote by the people where a super majority (differs state to state) can enact the legislation.
Go States' Rights.
Go States' Rights.
Well, ok then that comparison didn't work for you. I have a bread crumb against a 1000 acres of wheat. I can eat my bread crumb and die of starvation, or as you put it, give away my bread crumb and ........still die of starvation.
The point is, say....Texas has a vote up to pass legislation to legalize prostitution (see, this post is gonna be funny), do you think the people decide which way that vote goes? Or.....does the $2.5 million spent on advertising against by the church decide that vote? Or the $15 million spent on advertising for by the multibillion dollar porn industry.
A poor example, I realize, but you see my point? For the record, legalizing prostitution gets my vote regardless of the money spent on advertising.
Look at it this way. Let's say there is a hypothetical country that contains 3 states. The people in those 3 states have the following position on abortion:
State 1 contains very religious people, and about 90% of them oppose abortion.
State 2 contains about 50% of people who oppose abortion.
State 3 is very liberal, with only 10% of people opposing abortion.
Now, Lets assume that state 1 and 2 make abortion illegal, but state 3 makes it legal. 90% of people in states 1 and 3 are happy, and half of the people in state 2 are happy. Overall, about 77% of the entire country is happy with the abortion situation.
But now lets say that their federal government decides to make abortion illegal across the board. 90% of the people in state 1 are still happy, and half of the people in state 2 are still happy, but now 90% of the people in state 3 have become very unhappy! So now, the outlook of the entire country has changed such that only 50% of the country is happy!
The point of state and local government is that EVERYONE ISN'T THE SAME! What might be best up in Alaska probably wouldn't be best for people living down in Texas. "One size fits all" government is just stupid.
State 1 contains very religious people, and about 90% of them oppose abortion.
State 2 contains about 50% of people who oppose abortion.
State 3 is very liberal, with only 10% of people opposing abortion.
Now, Lets assume that state 1 and 2 make abortion illegal, but state 3 makes it legal. 90% of people in states 1 and 3 are happy, and half of the people in state 2 are happy. Overall, about 77% of the entire country is happy with the abortion situation.
But now lets say that their federal government decides to make abortion illegal across the board. 90% of the people in state 1 are still happy, and half of the people in state 2 are still happy, but now 90% of the people in state 3 have become very unhappy! So now, the outlook of the entire country has changed such that only 50% of the country is happy!
The point of state and local government is that EVERYONE ISN'T THE SAME! What might be best up in Alaska probably wouldn't be best for people living down in Texas. "One size fits all" government is just stupid.
TonySutton
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,038
nosebruise
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 454
aww man, i was gonna +1 that first.
Similar threads
