smaller federal government?

Should we go for a smaller federal government? That means Federal Tax only to go for Military & Federal Law enforcement. All other things would be handled by the State. Drug laws, Marriage Laws, so on.

Libertarian policies all the way. Lower taxes, stop babysitting the people. Power to the people and down with the man! You do need to include infastructure support, roads, transportation (not propping up the airlines or shitt amtrak), etc. Fight the power!

I believe that the federal government exists to ensure that all members of the nation are being fairly and equitably treated. Abolishing federal oversight is not the answer, as states mired deep in the heart of Jesusland would gleefully deny many of their citizens equal rights if given the chance. I consider myself a Libertarian, but I believe that at least some federal government is necessary to ensure that our individual rights are protected.

Of what possible use or justification is a military and why should I pay for it with tax dollars?

In many, many, many horrible ways it sucks that we are the big bully of the epoch.

...but on the other hand, I look at how easily I can just go buy some crap that I wouldn't want to harvest myself or spend the time making and I realize that I prefer living in a country with a strong military that protects the security of my country's excessive way of life.

That's not to say that there aren't better ways to run a country (and I personally don't think anything drastically better will come of our government until we more definitively separate corporate interest from the state so that the state will exist "for the people" instead of "for the people, except when they're not looking", but having a strong military makes me feel... comfortable.

Empire is not all bad. :\

siro,

Ideally, the military keeps us from being overrun by people who want to kill or enslave us if given the opportunity. That's the way it's worked in the past I believe. Sometimes, it works the other way around, but that's a whole other story.

If you are:
Weak. Have no allies. Possess rich territory. Sooner or later you'll be overrun.

why do you think we don't need to support some kind of military? How would a nation state defend itself without one? A modern military/militia doesn't equip itself with weapons that you can just run out and buy as individuals, not to mention logistical support. Even Costa Rica has a military (although they don't claim to have one officially). They rely on paramilitary police to patrol their borders and the US army to back them up. I've seen this in person.

I agree that if there were no nation-states it might not be such an issue, but that doesn't seem like that'll happen right now.

or are you just having fun with us...lol?

If you dislike a State law you can move to a different state.
If you dislike a County law you can move to a different county.
If you dislike a Township law you can move to a different township
If you dislike a City/Town/est Law you can move to a different City/Town/est.
If you dislike a federal law were do you go?
If your living in the Bible Belt and your have a problem MOVE.

I don't care to live in a country where the highest governing authority has a fraction of the resources of an average multinational corporation. We've already got places like that in the world. They tend to degenerate into squalid company towns where the multinational rips out whatever resource they came for and then vanish like thieves, leaving huge environmental and social messes in their wake.

We need big government to kick big business' balls up into its larynx when it gets out of line (of course, when the two start sleeping together, that just defeats the whole purpose).

Well, we need a strong Federal government.

What we dont need is a bloated federal bureaucracy.


Theres a big difference. Its hard to see it though through all the red tape.

Ahhh. I see. If I dislike slavery, I should do nothing to oppose it. I should instead move to an area where slavery is illegal. I guess they didn't get the memo back during the civil war...

Oh, they did get the memo. They passed a law that if you moved away from someplace where slavery was legal, they could come haul your ass back (and probably accidentally hang you along the way).

The US Constriction covers that. Being the fact that it’s not easy to put a new Amendment in to it I say it is a system that works.

Hmm...

And what does your "Hmm..." mean in this?

If you dislike a county law you can organize a petition and have a reforendum.
If you dislike a Township law you can vote in new trustees.
If you silike a City law you can vote in new council members and a new Mayor
If you dislike a federal law you can vote for new senators/congress , President.
If you are living in the Bible belt you are supposed to have protections under the constitution.

Democracy .. it isnt just for philosophers from 2400 years ago any more.

This is true, unless you’re a minority person (I am not talking about race) at this level it is easier to change. Democracy works only if you’re the majority.


This is true, unless you’re a minority person (I am not talking about race) at this level it is easier to change. Democracy works only if you’re the majority.


This is true, unless you’re a minority person (I am not talking about race) at this level it is easier to change. Democracy works only if you’re the majority.


On this level it is hard to change. How many of your Senators congressmen or President are not out of touch? I live in a very liberal town, Yes our Representative is Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. I have been working hard to have him thrown out on his ear. Let me tell you not as easy as you would think. To many very hard core Republican areas in his District.


I agree but it’s harder to win then to just move. I have a friend that is a Open Pagan in the Bible Belt and he was always telling me how he is protected. Well he is moving, why? Because it’s not so easy to be protected.

Unfortunately , Moving is of course only an option for some.

Many hurt by said laws it is simply not an option.


In addition - If you lose elections and just give up, the system never gets any better.

In defense of one's country one does not need a 'military', one needs a coast guard and some sort of border protection. One hardly needs an organized built up military that, at this time in the USA is primarily used to war on other nations rather than 'defend' our own which has been the primary reason given thus far for one. Please give a reason for a 'military'. I personally think if a bunch of rich people in high places want to war on other nations, they should pay for it (in every way) and find the volunteers for that. If we were to have a smaller federal government, a military should not be a part of said government.

I have not given up. I write letters I work hard to get him out of office. I know it is unlikely and If it was on a local level and I know I could not do it I could move and just get aways from him.

That's not a solution. Running away from your problem is cowardly, and leaves the problem for others to deal with.

Though I do agree that the Fed. needs to be smaller...I have to stop a bit short. It was a Constitutional Amendment that grants equal protection rights, if America waited for States to give everyone the same rights...well, I doubt we'd see the same freedom today across the U.S.

Sometimes I trust the federal governement more than the state and Lcoal government!

As far as proping up amtrak, well if the federal government didn't unfaily subsidize the trucking industry by building the interstate defense highway system, then they would not have undercut the railroads ability to to compete. However the power of the teamsters went a long way to eliminating toll roads in america. lol

Its never a simple solution. government is complex.

Again I would point out that that was a Constitutional Change and something that should have been done and kept the State rights safe. Look at the ruling on Medical Pot, that was nothing more then a attack on State Rights.


I disagree. It’s not running away. It would be moving to a place were I like the laws better. The “Problem” is not really a problem for people that keep electing him. So I would have left them not left them anything didn’t ask for with there votes.

I agree that the primary role of our military should be to defend and opposed to "offend". On the other hand, i'm not sure having only a coast guard and some sort of border patrol is adequate. I think most people would agree that our current border patrol is not quite doing the trick. Do you think that our border patrol and coast guard could stand against the full military might of the entire Russian Army or China? Or later on, a militarized European Union?

Nuclear/chemical/bio weapons are perhaps an effective deterrent for countries that are outgunned (which is why some nations are developing them), but the consequences and costs of maintaining and using them are potentially quite high.

If you advocate some kind of professional class of soldiers for "border defense" than I still think you have a military in all but name. It only seems a matter of semantics and scale to me.

The reasons we need a military are similiar to the reasons we need police. Some people don't respond to reason, kind words and don't follow the "Golden Rule" of- do unto others as you would do unto you.They don't respect the Social Contract. Therefore, there needs to be a "stick" that keeps them from destroying society. Do the police and others who wield force (such as the military) abuse this power and use it to oppress others? Yes, sometimes. That's why they need to be carefully monitored and controlled by society. However, not having them at all in a large society is not really very practical.

One would assume that if one only had a coast guard (and similiar institution for land locked portions of the borderline) that they would be adequate to the job. Yes I think they could stand against any conventional attack. Have you thought out how a conventional attack has to be launched? Very few people do it these days because of the intensive amount of logistics it demands and how utterly stupid it is to launch one. It is far easier to pacify your enemy from afar with intercontinental weapons or other means of remote destruction. That being said, the worst actual damage we have faced -on our soil- in the past hunderd some years has been launched from within our borders.



A better and more effective deterrent to nuclear/chemical/bio weapons are FAKE Nuclear/chemical/bio weapons. We could have won the cold war ridiculously easily by setting up a hundred silos to each nuke we had and leaking intelligence to the effect that we did in fact have the armaments for each one. Further, such facilities don't need to be staffed, maintained or equipped. Creating such weapons in the first place will lead to using them and the cost IS high, so do neither as both are clearly a waste of time, money, and effort. You can just go through the motions of it to satisfy any need for deterrence you may have.



It's a matter of gas. An air force set up for defense would not need intercontinental range or bombing capability. It would be more geared toward interception and recon. Similarly a navy would have less use of craft capable of traversing oceans for years at a time and also less use of long range submarine technology. Sure the people are still trained as professional soldiers, but they clearly have different duties from what we have today.



People that don't respond to reason do respond to a whole host of other stimuli (like capitalism, cultural change, propaganda, etc.) that don't involve them being shot, maimed, murdered, or otherwise rendered not alive. Further, having a single office capable of mobilizing your entire military on a whim is a very bad thing. A coast guard couldn't be ordered to march into Canada and take Quebec, but our Military can (and ironically the coast guard can be called up to support the Military, which is just wrong), should the President fancy it and issue the orders. There is no check or balance in this action. If you want to shrink the federal government and generally make it a better place for everyone, this power should be the first to go.