Peasants: should government be small, voluntary, and private?

[Hossage]

Well, what say you, peasants?

[Jim in Anchorage]

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should only be concerned with national defense.The States can handle the rest.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should only be concerned with national defense.The States can handle the rest.

 

No they may not.

 

Anyway, there is no going back... Too much has been invested off the backs of some states to bring a lot of other states up to snuff. Unfortunately a lot of these states that were helped feel they can go it alone now... No doubt they can, but that is not the point. The point is the Union.

 

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

[Jim in Anchorage]

No they may not.

 

Anyway, there is no going back... Too much has been invested off the backs of some states to bring a lot of other states up to snuff. Unfortunately a lot of these states that were helped feel they can go it alone now... No doubt they can, but that is not the point. The point is the Union.

 

 

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

 

Provide a example of a state that has been brought up on the back of some other state. One will do.

[LeviF]

Who's the !@#$ who voted for theocracy?

[Booster4324]

Who's the !@#$ who voted for theocracy?

 

Don't look at me, I voted for Tribalism.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Provide a example of a state that has been brought up on the back of some other state. One will do.

 

Appalacia.

The Inter-Mountain West.

Later Alaska.

 

Now it is their turn to "start buying a round" with what they have to offer in regard to natural resources. Their infrastructures are in place, if the free market was really in place... Those remote places should have been paying a ton more for services through the years... Roads, ports, recreation, electicfician & telecommunication, etc... etc...

 

The Fed has helped a lot starting up through the New Deal... Of course now that they have been set, they want to kick the Fed to the curb... Figures...

 

A classic example was the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) and what they accomplished in 9 short years.

[Dante]

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should only be concerned with national defense.The States can handle the rest.

Maybe we can let them look after the interstates. They can use criminal inmates for grunt labor and contract out the management/engineering end of it. I want no government official actually thinking or imputing on how the work should be done. Even this scenario has the potential for corruption but I guess we have to throw them a bone.

[Dan]

Provide a example of a state that has been brought up on the back of some other state. One will do.

How about all of them. Or are you suggesting that over the past 100 years there hasn't been trillions of dollars in Federal money delivered to every state to build the interstate highway system, provide for public schools, build dams for electricity, reservoirs for drinking water, and so on and so forth? States rely greatly on Federal money for just about everything they do.

 

It's nice to rail on the federal government and all their incompetency. It's nice to say that the states can do everything themselves. It's nice to say that you don't need anything from the government. But, the reality is that a strong federal government that's provided for all the various services that most everyone takes for granted is precisely what's allowed us all to live in the greatest country on the planet and not some 3rd world country of have's and have nots.

 

TVA, alone, changed the entire landscape of much of the south giving some of the poorest areas of the country (TN, AL, MS, WV, KY, GA, NC) electricity, improved farming, flood control, and increased commercial traffic. But, I guess all those states weren't helped at all by the federal government, which gets its money from all the states.

[ExiledInIllinois]

How about all of them. Or are you suggesting that over the past 100 years there hasn't been trillions of dollars in Federal money delivered to every state to build the interstate highway system, provide for public schools, build dams for electricity, reservoirs for drinking water, and so on and so forth? States rely greatly on Federal money for just about everything they do.

 

It's nice to rail on the federal government and all their incompetency. It's nice to say that the states can do everything themselves. It's nice to say that you don't need anything from the government. But, the reality is that a strong federal government that's provided for all the various services that most everyone takes for granted is precisely what's allowed us all to live in the greatest country on the planet and not some 3rd world country of have's and have nots.

 

TVA, alone, changed the entire landscape of much of the south giving some of the poorest areas of the country (TN, AL, MS, WV, KY, GA, NC) electricity, improved farming, flood control, and increased commercial traffic. But, I guess all those states weren't helped at all by the federal government, which gets its money from all the states.

 

+1 Dan.

[/dev/null]

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

You know, maybe those dead white guys actually had a good idea

[drnykterstein]

The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should only be concerned with national defense.The States can handle the rest.

 

I'd support that. Seeing as how states that usually vote Republican get the most federal aid, I'd enjoy it really.

[drnykterstein]

"relatively benevolent socialism"

 

What the !@#$ does that mean? I disagree wholly with this implication that socialism is anything but benevolent. I think the creator of this poll needs to learn that socialism is an entirely different entity (with different causes and different implications) than a dictator or a totalitarian government. I read into your statement that you think tyrannical governments and socialism are somehow correlated. I challenge this line of thinking as an entirely false assertion.

[Jim in Anchorage]

How about all of them. Or are you suggesting that over the past 100 years there hasn't been trillions of dollars in Federal money delivered to every state to build the interstate highway system, provide for public schools, build dams for electricity, reservoirs for drinking water, and so on and so forth? States rely greatly on Federal money for just about everything they do.

 

It's nice to rail on the federal government and all their incompetency. It's nice to say that the states can do everything themselves. It's nice to say that you don't need anything from the government. But, the reality is that a strong federal government that's provided for all the various services that most everyone takes for granted is precisely what's allowed us all to live in the greatest country on the planet and not some 3rd world country of have's and have nots.

 

TVA, alone, changed the entire landscape of much of the south giving some of the poorest areas of the country (TN, AL, MS, WV, KY, GA, NC) electricity, improved farming, flood control, and increased commercial traffic. But, I guess all those states weren't helped at all by the federal government, which gets its money from all the states.

Lame argument. The interstate highway system WAS built for national defense. TVA was a FDR make work project that has long ago outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. The dams, schools,reservoirs,etc all are local issues and should be a state matter.

Living on the Federal teat just creates massive waste. "Hey we better find something to spend money on or we will miss out on matching Federal funds"

And before Eric pipes in about Alaska, I would gladly vote to never accept A Federal nickel if they would give us back the 100+MILLION acres they have locked up in national parks, forever off the tax rolls.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Addendum-It would also be nice if that loving, motherly federal gov't Would let Alaska EXTRACT IT'S OWN NATURAL RESOURCES. Yeah, we "need " Fed money.

[Dan]

Lame argument. The interstate highway system WAS built for national defense. TVA was a FDR make work project that has long ago outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. The dams, schools,reservoirs,etc all are local issues and should be a state matter.

Living on the Federal teat just creates massive waste. "Hey we better find something to spend money on or we will miss out on matching Federal funds"

And before Eric pipes in about Alaska, I would gladly vote to never accept A Federal nickel if they would give us back the 100+MILLION acres they have locked up in national parks, forever off the tax rolls.

Regardless of why the interstate highway system was built, there's no denying that all states have reaped the benefits of having this federally funded waste project. So to say it was built for national defense ignores completely the fact that everyone in the country has access to and the benefits of the interstate system. And that access helped a great many states to develop large business and manufacturing hubs.

 

TVA has outlived its usefulness? Today the "TVA operates the dams, locks, and reservoirs of the Tennessee River and its tributaries as one integrated system in order to provide multiple benefits for the region. These benefits include year-round navigation, flood damage reduction, affordable electricity, improved water quality and water supply, recreation, and economic growth." I guess that's all meaningless waste. And that's not even to mention the historical impact it had on bringing one of the poorest regions of the country into the 20th century.

 

You asked for one example of a state that was brought up on the back of another state. Are you suggesting that none of these states were helped by other states? Would they have been better off fending for themselves?

 

Yeah, I'm sure you think it'd be great to cut Alaska loose and let it do what it wants. Hell, you'd probably be better off not even being a part of the US, right? But, again, that's easy to say today after decades of federal tax dollars have helped Alaska. But, I guess Alaskans would just have been better off if other state's tax dollars hadn't been used to buy the land from Russia? I guess it's just nice and easy today to discard the past advancements made due to other state's tax dollars.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Regardless of why the interstate highway system was built, there's no denying that all states have reaped the benefits of having this federally funded waste project. So to say it was built for national defense ignores completely the fact that everyone in the country has access to and the benefits of the interstate system. And that access helped a great many states to develop large business and manufacturing hubs.

 

TVA has outlived its usefulness? Today the "TVA operates the dams, locks, and reservoirs of the Tennessee River and its tributaries as one integrated system in order to provide multiple benefits for the region. These benefits include year-round navigation, flood damage reduction, affordable electricity, improved water quality and water supply, recreation, and economic growth." I guess that's all meaningless waste. And that's not even to mention the historical impact it had on bringing one of the poorest regions of the country into the 20th century.

 

You asked for one example of a state that was brought up on the back of another state. Are you suggesting that none of these states were helped by other states? Would they have been better off fending for themselves?

 

Yeah, I'm sure you think it'd be great to cut Alaska loose and let it do what it wants. Hell, you'd probably be better off not even being a part of the US, right? But, again, that's easy to say today after decades of federal tax dollars have helped Alaska. But, I guess Alaskans would just have been better off if other state's tax dollars hadn't been used to buy the land from Russia? I guess it's just nice and easy today to discard the past advancements made due to other state's tax dollars.

I wish you would quit using century's old examples to justify Federal spending. I suppose next I will hear about the Louisiana Purchase. What did you expect tva.gov to say? We are worthless and need to be eliminated?

Frankly if a state is that p poor people need to move. As they have done for generations.

[Dan]

I wish you would quit using century's old examples to justify Federal spending. I suppose next I will hear about the Louisiana Purchase. What did you expect tva.gov to say? We are worthless and need to be eliminated?

Frankly if a state is that p poor people need to move. As they have done for generations.

I'm sorry. When you asked for an example, I didn't realize that there was a time limit. So when do we start ignoring all past accomplishments? A week ago? A year? A decade? When it's convenient to prove a point?

[Jim in Anchorage]

I'm sorry. When you asked for an example, I didn't realize that there was a time limit. So when do we start ignoring all past accomplishments? A week ago? A year? A decade? When it's convenient to prove a point?

We were discussing the role of the Feds TODAY. My God you found it necessary to bring up the purchase of Alaska in 1867. Something a little more current would be more convincing.

[Dan]

We were discussing the role of the Feds TODAY. My God you found it necessary to bring up the purchase of Alaska in 1867. Something a little more current would be more convincing.

Initially, I mentioned more recent events such as the interstate highway system and TVA. My Alaskan reference was merely a tongue in cheek rebuttal to your implication that the state would be better off without federal funding.

 

So, again, how recent do we have to go? A week ago? Or just today?

 

The fact is, is that there have been alot of good things to come about in every state of the union due to federal funds and you can't just simply ignore all that today and say it no longer counts, tap out and be done with the system.