Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 193

Thread: The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

  1. #81
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?

    The world is more complex. Bureaucracy becomes more complex to deal with the emerging problems - or should we strip down the state to its bare bones where there's only a handful of decision-makers and technicians? Interestingly, in the book The Dictators, the author makes it clear that the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler relied on their personal power and their ability to subordinate and bypass the functions of their respective state bureaucracies. Hitler specifically only met his ministers one or two at a time in a private meeting when he could manage it in order to reduce the restrictions placed on his decision-making. When there's no bureaucracy, it's those with the resources (the rich, the violent, etc) that come to power. It's not freedom.
    Freedom is life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in order to insure that personal responsabilty was also part of the equation.
    ,

  2. #82
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Freedom is life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in order to insure that personal responsabilty was also part of the equation.
    ,
    Hey Slap !

    Exactly ! With freedom comes a responsibility to lead an ethical life.

    Seems our govt has a different definition of responsibility.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  3. #83
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Hey Slap !

    Exactly ! With freedom comes a responsibility to lead an ethical life.

    Seems our govt has a different definition of responsibility.
    Stan/Slap,

    There is a problem with this thinking. If all your government can expect from you is your personal responsibility to lead and ethical life - if there are no enforceable obligations - then there is no law. What you are describing is anarchy.

    an∑ar∑chy
    [an-er-kee] Show IPA

    noun
    1.
    a state of society without government or law.

    2.
    political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.

    3.
    anarchism ( def 1 ) .

    4.
    lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
    Is this where you see America heading, toward a state of no enforceable obligation - no law?
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 04-07-2014 at 07:49 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  4. #84
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Gee what a wonderment of distortion and misapprehension this is. And to conclude that bureaucracy is a bulwark against dictatorship! Simply amazing.
    What's "dictatorship"? If "dictatorship" is rule by an individual or small clique, then the collective decision making process of a bureaucracy is one bulwark against dictatorship. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were inefficient states not because of bureaucracy because the elite frequently circumvented bureaucracy for political reasons - officials were often tasked with special authorities to remove, modify, or otherwise displace the rule-based functions of bureaucracy, which lead to administrative chaos. Stalin had a personal chancellery with which to communicate, supervise, and otherwise control party subordinates independent of the state apparatus. That's dictatorship.

    Now, let's take your definition of freedom as "to do whatever you want" since you haven't provided a definition of your own. I want to drive on the left side of the road because that's what I want to do. It doesn't matter that it puts other people's lives at risk because it's my freedom to do as I please that we're talking about. However, to ensure that I can freely drive on the left side of the road, I need to make sure I have the biggest truck in order to drive over all the imports and green-efficient cars that are obeying the law. The rule of law in this scenario no longer exists. In fact, the person with the biggest truck rules the road and everyone needs to get out of his way. That's not freedom either. That's actually another form of dictatorship.

    The same concept applies to all other regulation, from building airports to safety in civil aviation, to the environment. Properly attuned regulations ensure that your actions do not impede on my own freedom. Ironically, this is lost in the growing Tea Party movement. Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  5. #85
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Stan/Slap,

    There is a problem with this thinking. If all your government can expect from you is your personal responsibility to lead and ethical life - if there are no enforceable obligations - then there is no law. What you are describing is anarchy

    Is this where you see America heading, toward a state of no enforceable obligation - no law?
    Stan,
    Not all our government can expect from me, but what I expect from normal Americans in general.

    I'd send all 535 members into war with the POTUS (save those who really did serve at one time in their life) to ensure the next time they vote, it will be clear that their Alphas are on the line too.

    I see law enforcement as a principal element of our freedom. But, I see "simplistic, in an election year, knee jerking reaction to what works today", let's go to war without me" Bravo Sierra.

    That I call Chicken Sierra, stuff your cigar where you will, run to Canada's border, BS.

    I'll get off the soap box now and get a fresh beer
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  6. #86
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    120, I understand the power of the 10th amendment, even if the Supreme Court does not. I just feel that, whatever power it had died after the civil war. Even so, the conditions that exist seem ripe for an insurgent or counter-culture attack on the traditional seats of power.
    You make a valid point. The American Civil War put the lie to the 10th. The thing is, the snowball really picked up steam in the way the post WWII America pushed equal rights and liberalism. Don't get me wrong, equal rights and "some" liberalism is good, but bypassing law and the US Constitution to push them is bad. Scofflawry cuts both ways. For instance, in my state, I supported Gay Civil Unions (Gay marriage is illogical idiocy, don't get me started on that) but the Activists bribed/influenced some judges to just circumvent the legal process entirely to get their way. Horrifically bad idea to just change the rules of the game extra-legally, imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Certainly annoying, but hardly terrifying, and it's hard to see that as sufficient cause to start fondling weapons and dreaming of a personal secession. Whom would one shoot over such a complaint anyway?

    I think Curmudgeon has a point... the restrictions on freedom experienced not so very long ago by those who happened to be born into a racial minority, or gay, or female (all of these exist in Middle America too, believe it or not) were orders of magnitude above the annoyances of excessive regulation or (gasp) paying taxes. While we're certainly not absolutely free, I don't see a serious argument that freedom has seriously degenerated. Progress in some areas, less in others... as usual.
    From your point of view, of course. I have serious heartache about paying taxes that are laughably unconstitutional in nature. The Federal government has zero standing to take my money and give it to someone else. Zero. This should be something that the states may do. This is not "progress". This is reverting to the kind of thing Ancient despots would do to keep the mob happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Carl,

    I don' think that is anything new. Reagan bemoaned it back before the end of the Cold War. It is also not unique to the US. I think the British have complained about bureaucracy for much longer and far more than we do.

    What seems to be uniquely American is how we react to it. Perhaps that is a because of our national mythology of the rugged individual. Perhaps, as 120 has also noted, the complexity and centralization of the federal government acts to create the impression of powerlessness. We are a big country. It is not easy to go to Washington and complain in person, even if you could figure out who to complain to.

    But this problem has found a political voice in the Libertarian movement. So it would seem like the normal release valve for tensions around the issue of a complex and unresponsive federal system is either not working or is not truly keying in on the problem.

    A scarier thought is that electoral democracy, as practiced in the United States, is no longer functioning. This is not the government of the founding fathers. They had a healthy distrust of both the common people and those in power. Originally, neither Senators nor the President were directly elected by the people. The checks on power of the President, like having to go to Congress to get permission to take the country to war, have been eroded in the name of expediency. But if that is the case, I am not hearing any arguments about what to replace the system with. The Libertarians want less government but not a different one. We seem to know what we donít want more than we know what we want.
    The "impression" of powerlessness? Understatement of the millenium.

    I could give a crap less about political parties. But I have a special dislike for the con artists and naive idiots that compose the so-called "Libertarian" movement. They are a laughable case study in how to be ineffective and how to inadvertantly assist those who are opposed to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    What's "freedom"? Carl says it's the freedom to build an airport without reading 900 pages of regulations or to give a 16 old ammunition for an assault rifle. What about the freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road or the freedom to not properly perform maintenance on a civil airliner?

    The world is more complex. Bureaucracy becomes more complex to deal with the emerging problems - or should we strip down the state to its bare bones where there's only a handful of decision-makers and technicians? Interestingly, in the book The Dictators, the author makes it clear that the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler relied on their personal power and their ability to subordinate and bypass the functions of their respective state bureaucracies. Hitler specifically only met his ministers one or two at a time in a private meeting when he could manage it in order to reduce the restrictions placed on his decision-making. When there's no bureaucracy, it's those with the resources (the rich, the violent, etc) that come to power. It's not freedom.
    This is complete nonsense. "The world is more complex" is a justification for bureacrats to collect a check to do nothing of worth, and often to do evil.

    Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.

    Your example of Nazi Germany actually works against your argument. The Nazi Party and Hitler actually didn't run day to day Germany; the local governments did. And, in fact, the Vereinskultur (Club Culture) was key in running Germany in times of trouble before Hitler rose to power. Even super-bureaucratic WWII Germany wasn't so stupid as to concentrate all the power in just one man's hands.

  7. #87
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    What's "dictatorship"? If "dictatorship" is rule by an individual or small clique, then the collective decision making process of a bureaucracy is one bulwark against dictatorship. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were inefficient states not because of bureaucracy because the elite frequently circumvented bureaucracy for political reasons - officials were often tasked with special authorities to remove, modify, or otherwise displace the rule-based functions of bureaucracy, which lead to administrative chaos. Stalin had a personal chancellery with which to communicate, supervise, and otherwise control party subordinates independent of the state apparatus. That's dictatorship.

    Now, let's take your definition of freedom as "to do whatever you want" since you haven't provided a definition of your own. I want to drive on the left side of the road because that's what I want to do. It doesn't matter that it puts other people's lives at risk because it's my freedom to do as I please that we're talking about. However, to ensure that I can freely drive on the left side of the road, I need to make sure I have the biggest truck in order to drive over all the imports and green-efficient cars that are obeying the law. The rule of law in this scenario no longer exists. In fact, the person with the biggest truck rules the road and everyone needs to get out of his way. That's not freedom either. That's actually another form of dictatorship.

    The same concept applies to all other regulation, from building airports to safety in civil aviation, to the environment. Properly attuned regulations ensure that your actions do not impede on my own freedom. Ironically, this is lost in the growing Tea Party movement. Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.
    Again, bull####. You build a ridiculous straw man to support the insupportable. What you propose is a form of rule where people only behave because they are directed to do so by a government bureacracy.

    "Collective Freedom?"

    Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".

  8. #88
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Stan,
    Not all our government can expect from me, but what I expect from normal Americans in general.

    ....

    I'll get off the soap box now and get a fresh beer
    Stan,

    Enjoy your beer and after you have had about three, ponder this.

    Often when I ask Americans what freedom and liberty should mean, and how it should be maintained, I almost always get answers similar to you and SLAP. I believe American's are basically responsible human beings and they feel that being a responsible human being is all that is required for the perfect society. Any attempt to enforce that perfection is seen as an attack on their freedom. My son believes that anarchy is the next stage in governmental development.

    It makes me wonder if anarchy IS actually what people want: to be free of the obligations of a government entirely. Of course, it is not as simple as that. It never is. But I do think there is a little bit of anarchist in all Americans ... and that is not a bad thing.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 04-07-2014 at 08:28 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  9. #89
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Stan/Slap,

    There is a problem with this thinking. If all your government can expect from you is your personal responsibility to lead and ethical life - if there are no enforceable obligations - then there is no law. What you are describing is anarchy.



    Is this where you see America heading, toward a state of no enforceable obligation - no law?
    No. What is important to understand is that the founding fathers believed that your RIGHTS come from GOD not man! But in order to establish a "more perfect union" they formed a Constitutional Republic .........not a Democracy as is so often professed by the Democratic Communist/Progressive/Political Correctness party....... a nation of laws not men! And all men would be equal under these laws. So the law was critically important. Indeed it is to be sacred under our exceptional American system not something to be followed by some and abused by the elite!


    Point number two is the christian church was meant to be the primary educater of moral law. Christians landed at Plymouth Rock nit Muslims and not atheists. It is a lie to say that there was meant to be a seperation of church and state. The constitutional clause is for the prevention of a National Religion again to prevent King George's Church Of England from following across the ocean.
    Last edited by slapout9; 04-07-2014 at 08:23 PM. Reason: stuff

  10. #90
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Stan,

    Enjoy your beer and after you have had about three, ponder this.

    Often when I ask Americans what freedom and liberty should mean, and how it should be maintained, I almost always get answers similar to you and SLAP. I believe American's are basically responsible human beings and they feel that being a responsible human being is all that is required for the perfect society. Any attempt to enforce that perfection is seen as an attack on their freedom. My son believes that anarchy is the next stage in governmental development.

    It makes me wonder if anarchy IS actually what people want: to be free of the obligations of a government entirely. Of course, it is not as simple as that. It never is. But I do think there is a little bit of anarchist in all Americans ... and that is not a bad thing.
    Stan,
    This almost sounds like a Green Card test question. But Iíll bite as I am working on my 4th beer !

    I feel I have the right to freedom not simply because I served my country for 23 years, but because well before me my entire family (mostly immigrants) chose to serve to preserve that American feeling.

    Lately, the USA has done a poor job of maintaining our civil liberties with policies that any normal human could barely even imagine. Yep, on the surface it seems too easy for me to merely point out our govtís faults. However, having served in situations where we knew we were dead wrong, and by oath of military service, we simply said ďyes SirĒ, itís now easier than ever to tell you we were dead wrong.

    We shouldnít need a Snowden to tell us when we have breached ethical standards even by African standards, yet alone American.

    I doubt most American civilians would even know what anarchy is.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  11. #91
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Stan,
    This almost sounds like a Green Card test question. But Iíll bite as I am working on my 4th beer !
    That was quick!
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  12. #92
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Stan,

    It makes me wonder if anarchy IS actually what people want: to be free of the obligations of a government entirely. Of course, it is not as simple as that. It never is. But I do think there is a little bit of anarchist in all Americans ... and that is not a bad thing.
    Stan,
    I think the confusion lies with the definitions of social upheaval and anarchy.

    Having witnessed both but not participated in either, it sums up kind of like this in layman's terms...

    Social Upheaval: When the population has finally figured out they are getting screwed by a bunch of politicians and payday no longer is enough to wash down all that Bravo Sierra, the population goes haywire.

    Anarchy: The population doesn't care and the population goes haywire.

    I agree, most of us do care and do try.

    Most of us are also a bit skeptical when all our elected officials do all day long is ponder over something they cannot change, send us to the most inhospitable places on earth to achieve their goal of world supremacy in the name of freedom while they sit at home cranking out text on their game boy.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  13. #93
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    No. What is important to understand is that the founding fathers believed that your RIGHTS come from GOD not man! But in order to establish a "more perfect union" they formed a Constitutional Republic .........not a Democracy as is so often professed by the Democratic Communist/Progressive/Political Correctness party....... a nation of laws not men! And all men would be equal under these laws. So the law was critically important. Indeed it is to be sacred under our exceptional American system not something to be followed by some and abused by the elite!


    Point number two is the christian church was meant to be the primary educater of moral law. Christians landed at Plymouth Rock nit Muslims and not atheists. It is a lie to say that there was meant to be a seperation of church and state. The constitutional clause is for the prevention of a National Religion again to prevent King George's Church Of England from following across the ocean.
    While I agree with your first point, I am not so sure I agree with your second. It is well known that Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, believed that the church was not needed to support civil society:

    It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE. [James Madison, as quoted in Robert L. Maddox: Separation of Church and State; Guarantor of Religious Freeedom]
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 04-07-2014 at 09:10 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  14. #94
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    That was quick!
    Mondays can be depressing when freezing in the Baltic
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  15. #95
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Stan,
    ...

    I agree, most of us do care and do try.

    Most of us are also a bit skeptical when all our elected officials do all day long is ponder over something they cannot change, send us to the most inhospitable places on earth to achieve their goal of world supremacy in the name of freedom while they sit at home cranking out text on their game boy.
    As you noted in your earlier quote, there has been a shift toward the repressive and all of us, myself included, jumped on that bandwagon in the name of national security and defense of the homeland. Perhaps, we went too far ... and the angst in the general population finding its outlet in claims of the need for Military Style Semi-Automatic weapons to defend themselves against their own police are a product of that. Perhaps it is time to step away from the need to maintain such tight security … before we lose everything to those in our own government who might use that tight security for thier own ends ... more than they already have.

    Historically, it is usually harder to take power back from the government once we give it up. But I would hope that if this is the genesis of the paranoia that a court case or two will fix things. I have little faith in the Congress to act.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  16. #96
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Indeed And to think you were going to build an airport in DRC If you do, it will be more than 900 pages long in Bravo Sierra !
    I couldn't get it done but I know an extremely capable guy from USAMRID who did get it done. And he got it done with I am sure a handful of pages of paper and a lot of personal contact, energy, a surprisingly small amount of money, lots of inborn talent, a small amount of time and some good judgement. You know the type of guy I'm talking about. Hell you probably were that type of guy.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  17. #97
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    While I agree with your first point, I am not so sure I agree with your second. It is well known that Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, believed that the church was not needed to support civil society:
    Crumudgy,
    Your missing the point. Several authors believed that to include Jefferson I think. But here is the point ,in the end they DID NOT put it in the Bill Of Rights as is so often asserted. They accomplished their objective be stating there would be NO national religion I.e. no church of America and they also protected the right of free worship an practice so that the Protestant religion and work ethic could take hold as opposed to the Church Of England which was against free enerprise,private property,etc.

  18. #98
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    What you propose is a form of rule where people only behave because they are directed to do so by a government bureacracy.
    What I propose is that anarchy is not freedom. Ergo, the reduction of bureaucracy is not necessarily a proportional increase in 'freedom' (whatever that is) where at the end the elimination of bureaucracy equals absolute freedom. Please do keep up. You can start by providing your own definition of 'freedom'.

    Commie much? We had a perfectly functional checks and balances before our benign "Master Class" decided that freedom is a "group thing".
    Freedom is a 'group thing'. Your freedom is defined in relation to others.

    "The world is more complex" is a justification for bureacrats to collect a check to do nothing of worth, and often to do evil.
    Here some of the "northing of worth" that "bureaucrats" do to "collect a check": military service, law enforcement, border security, drug interdiction, food inspection, civil aviation safety enforcement, building codes, postal delivery, scientific research, and teaching. Just because your view of politics is narcassitic and socio-pathic, it doesn't mean the world is evil.

    And as the world has become more complex, so has the nature of the American civil service - most federal employees are older, more educated, and work in white collar position related to analysis, knowledge management, and idea generation. Even so, over the last 60 years, the ratio of population to federal employee has widened, and the role of states in local issues has expanded significantly; meaning that the "overcentralized mess" you invented doesn't actually exist. The 2008 crash hit the local and state governments hardest, since they are the "most responsive" to local conditions; in other words, a centralized federal government was best positioned to withstand the crisis and continue to provide services.

    Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.
    Because that worked so well for blacks in the American south for the last 300 years...
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

  19. #99
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Freedom is not an individual thing; it's a collective thing.
    Another simply amazing statement, sort of the underlying basis of the political manifesto of The Borg.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  20. #100
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120
    Local governance, nested and embedded in a small central federation is worlds more efficient, responsive governmment compared to the overcentralized mess we are building.
    This is an ideal-type with little factual evidence to support your claim. First, "efficient" and "responsive" are not necessarily paired types, nor are they essentially conducive to democratic governance and "freedom" (assuming also that democratic governance is the ideal type for optimizing 'freedom'). As cited with both Hitler and Stalin, their conduct was "efficient" in so far their directives bypassed all other stakeholders and state bureaucracies. When Stalin noted that grass was overgrowing in Moscow, the very next day laborers were out cutting all the grass and pulling down the trees. That's pretty damn efficient. But he was also pretty efficient in condemning hundreds of thousands of people to death. We're talking about 'freedom', not money markets, so we can dispense with the economic jargon about 'efficiency'.

    Is local governance more responsive than federal government? It depends to whom the government is responding. Local governments tend to politically alienate minority and low income communities depending on the structure of governance of the jurisdiction in question; and local special interest groups (i.e. COLLECTIVE action, there's that dirty word again) tend to have better access and more response than any individual citizen or business. But as noted earlier, that responsiveness is tied to the local conditions of the area, making it more difficult for localized authorities to tackle larger problems (i.e. regional transit, the environment, etc) alone, or simply stop functioning when local conditions fail (i.e. Detroit). And none of that actually makes government more democratic (i.e. maximizing citizen participation, which some would argue is a requirement for political freedom).

    So until you actually man up and provide a definition of 'freedom', you don't have an argument to provide.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •