The problem of representative democracy

[Traitorfish]

I think that negates the extent to which ideology is produced by practice, and not just inherited from the past. Nobody in the 1920s inherited fascism from their grandfather, and yet, fascism there was.

 

[GhostWriter16]

State and local governments were no less abusive than the federal government.

Of course they weren't. They just had the power to do it to only a smaller segment of the population.

 

[Traitorfish]

What difference does that make to the Indians? They're dead regardless of who organised it.

 

[Murky]

I think that negates the extent to which ideology is produced by practice, and not just inherited from the past. Nobody in the 1920s inherited fascism from their grandfather, and yet, fascism there was.

New ideologies supplant old ideologies when more people believe that the new ideology has the power to make their lives better in some way. What if fascists had not be destroyed by external forces? Would they still survive today?

 

[GhostWriter16]

What difference does that make to the Indians? They're dead regardless of who organised it.

That's true, and that was unavoidable at the time since nearly everybody didn't give a crap about the Indians.

The reality, however, is that many posters here view the Federal government as the Great Savior and the state government as evil.

The reality is that all government is capable of doing evil, and almost always does. Therefore, it at least makes sense to limit the number of people a given government rules over. At absolute minimum, it decreases the number of people that minorities (Political minorities, not racial ones) have to convince that their rights are worth protecting, and it makes "Voting with your feet" easier. Its easier to cross state-borders than national ones.

Will localism solve everything? Of course not? Are there case where the Federal Government should override local tyranny? Probably, but they rarely actually do, unless your definition of "Tyranny" is downright moronic. Will localism, at the very least, make life easier for the losers, or at least make them more easily able to go to a place where their rights are protected? Yes.

Imagine that Alabama passes a law making sodomy criminal and creats a draconian sentence, 20 years, for this act. Imagine that Virginia has no penalties for this sort of behavior, and Pennsylvania even decides to legalize gay marriage.

This is, of course, a negative state of affairs, and maybe if Alabama are the only ones who want to persecute homosexuals, the Federal government may well be effective at stopping them from doing so, if we imagine that the Federal government gives a crap about us anyway (They really don't since US politics are a game, not anything resembling a real democratic process). But if the bad laws, in this case, the criminalization of homosexuality in Alabama, that's bad and it should be opposed. Every decent person in Alabama should vote against it. But at least the losers, the homosexuals, in Alabama, can easily move to Pennsylvania and get married there. On the other hand, if people who dislike homosexual behavior and want to ban it can get the votes, nationwide, to ban the practice, its far more difficult to vote with your feet.

Localism doesn't really have the answers. Its damage control. The problem is, its literally impossible to empower the national majority to do only good things, but not evil things (As if we could even agree on what goes in which category.) As such I would generally consider it inappropriate to trump laws that you don't like at the state level with Federal force, because then other people can do the same thing to your state, and even fewer people get the government they want.

I'd rather everyone leave everyone alone, respect property rights, respect each others rights, and we wouldn't have a problem. But that won't ever happen, and so a damage control policy must be pursued.

I think minimizing power of the upper levels of government to interfere with lower levels is at least a form of damage control.

 

[Cutlass]

State and local governments were no less abusive than the federal government.

This is not true. State and local governments are usually a crapload more oppressive than the federal government. In fact it is damned hard to find any examples of the federal government being as bad as the states.

 

[Core Imposter]

This is not true. State and local governments are usually a crapload more oppressive than the federal government. In fact it is damned hard to find any examples of the federal government being as bad as the states.

That is your opinion. Mine is that the Federal government sanctions murder of innocents nationwide.

The original intent of the constitution was a limited Federal government which was and still is the best government model yet conceived. Alas, tyrant Lincoln happened. People always had the option to move state to state rather than out of the country. Government was closer to the people. That is undeniably a good thing.

 

[Cutlass]

That is your opinion. Mine is that the Federal government sanctions murder of innocents nationwide.

The original intent of the constitution was a limited Federal government which was and still is the best government model yet conceived. Alas, tyrant Lincoln happened. People always had the option to move state to state rather than out of the country. Government was closer to the people. That is undeniably a good thing.

Freedom is tyranny. Got it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That is your opinion. Mine is that the Federal government sanctions murder of innocents nationwide.

The original intent of the constitution was a limited Federal government which was and still is the best government model yet conceived. Alas, tyrant Lincoln happened. People always had the option to move state to state rather than out of the country. Government was closer to the people. That is undeniably a good thing.

I'd say its a "better" thing rather than a "Good" thing. Unfortunately, both states rights and national control allow for tyranny. State's rights isn't a magical solution. It just limits the number of people any one leader can tyranize, allow you to move to a state that you feel is not, or at least, is less, tyrannical, and more easily at that.

And I'd say that the Federal government sanctions murder of innocents WORLDWIDE. I know what you're saying nationwide with the abortion thing, I think that issue should also be returned to the states, and I'd vote to outlaw the practice in my state (Although liberal NY would never ever) but the Federal government is also DIRECTLY complicit in murdering people around the world, because we do and have in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, and all the little countries we've bombed.

And thank you for addressing Lincoln correctly

 

[Tahuti]

I'd say its a "better" thing rather than a "Good" thing. Unfortunately, both states rights and national control allow for tyranny. State's rights isn't a magical solution. It just limits the number of people any one leader can tyranize, allow you to move to a state that you feel is not, or at least, is less, tyrannical, and more easily at that.

I think I would prefer to defend local government over supralocal govenrment on the basis that local leaders are more prone to social pressure from their citizens than say, a president of nation-state. Since connections are the key of power in politics, it would make sense that leaders should actually know the people they lead to enable optimal decision making. In a nation-state like the USA or even the Netherlands, such aspect is absent.

 

[sophie]

The reality, however, is that many posters here view the Federal government as the Great Savior and the state government as evil.

[Which?]

 

[Traitorfish]

That's true, and that was unavoidable at the time since nearly everybody didn't give a crap about the Indians.

So what? They're still dead, and your poxy little governments still killed them; it remains irrelevant to the dead whether they were murdered at a state or federal level.