Legalize Drugs?

[Harlowe]

Why does chaos and anarchy keep coming up? No one is advocating that. Empowering the states more (not ENTIRELY see, I said MORE) is not going to cause chaos and anarchy. As I've stated repeatedly, empowering states, empowers individuals.

Our state representatives are going to be more beholden to their public, which would be us as individuals within that state, rather than trying to appease the majority of an entire nation. State by state we are not vanilla. We have different priorities, we have different issues.

[Select]

I don't think they would be more beholden. I think it would be easier to hide bad practices. I also think states would take it too far with "their different issues" I think they're kept roughly in check as it is now.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't think they would be more beholden. I think it would be easier to hide bad practices. I also think states would take it too far with "their different issues" I think they're kept roughly in check as it is now.

What do you base your opinion on with the hiding of bad practices?

[Partha]

That's easy, the Patriot Act.

Not impressed. Did Libertarians vote for the Republicans who pushed that legislation through? Yes. Don't ask me, ask Cato:

After two more years of war, wiretapping, and welfare-state social spending, we found similar patterns in 2006. In the Zogby survey, 59 percent of libertarians voted for Republican candidates for Congress, and 36 percent voted for Democrats. Comparing those results to the last off-year election in 2002, we find a 24 percentage point swing to the Democrats. That is, libertarians voted for Republican congressional candidates by a margin of 47 percentage points in 2002, and of only 23 points in 2006.

Why does chaos and anarchy keep coming up? No one is advocating that. Empowering the states more (not ENTIRELY see, I said MORE) is not going to cause chaos and anarchy. As I've stated repeatedly, empowering states, empowers individuals.

Unfunded mandates from the government empowers the states, because now THEY are the taxing bodies, not the Fed. Fed rates have dropped over the last 60 years and keep dropping, increases are all on the State side.

Our state representatives are going to be more beholden to their public

Cue Aldo Nova.

[Select]

There are less eyes and less people to hold those in the states accountable. I think it's easier to play to the "interests" of those in your same state, but those "interests" may be those of your closest buddies (and their businesses) who live there too. I've heard of more corruption on the township level (which varies from tiny to city-size) in NJ than I have heard of on the federal level. Again, not saying the feds are innocent.

What is the base of (what seems to be) your opinion that the states would not hide bad practices so easily?

[Harlowe]

Not impressed. Did Libertarians vote for the Republicans who pushed that legislation through? Yes. Don't ask me, ask Cato:

What does that have to do with the statement? I'm not excusing Libertarians for voting for the Repubicans that pushed the legislation through. I am saying it's an example of the bad, bad central government oppressing our freedoms.

Which is why I believe traditional libertarians are moving away from the GOP. I think Andrew Sullivan is a good example of a traditional libertarian, if you ever read his blog.

The problem is the Democratic party is just the lesser of evils right now to them. They don't have an ideal candidate in either party, nor their own.

[Embar Angylwrath]

There are less eyes and less people to hold those in the states accountable. I think it's easier to play to the "interests" of those in your same state, but those "interests" may be those of your closest buddies (and their businesses) who live there too. I've heard of more corruption on the township level (which varies from tiny to city-size) in NJ than I have heard of on the federal level. Again, not saying the feds are innocent.

What is the base of (what seems to be) your opinion that the states would not hide bad practices so easily?

Ahhh.. I see. You expect others to watch your representative and make decisions for you. Tell me, in the national, centralized form of government, who is looking out for your interests? And who polices the person that is supposed to be looking out for your interests?

Answer: No one.. and no one.

I think you have some unrealistic views about what happens in Washington. If you think about it, you'll find that career politicians in Washington are more beholden to interests not associated with your state. Decentralization of the government makes it extremely difficult and very expensive to run a lobbying campaign. Right now, lobbyists run a campaign in one spot... Washington.. imagine the difficulty in doing it in 50 differrent places, and coordinating the shaping of legislation in those 50 places to acheive the ends of the lobbyists. It would be next to impossible to do so.

[Select]

You expect others to watch your representative and make decisions for you.

I never said that.

Right now, lobbyists run a campaign in one spot... Washington.. imagine the difficulty in doing it in 50 differrent places, and coordinating the shaping of legislation in those 50 places to acheive the ends of the lobbyists. It would be next to impossible to do so.

Replace lobbyists with Joe State's best friends or people he favors back home. Their interests may not be best for the state. Their interests may only be their interests. Their interests may just generate a profit for them.
I think it's easier to hide because again, there are fewer eyes able to see and able to expose. Why do you think it would be so much better? Lobbyists are not the only thing to corrupt or influence.

And don't play your give and take games with me. I answered your question. Answer mine.

I still also think states would go overboard with "what's in their best interest". Look at the abortion and execution laws from state to state. They vary immensely. I see things varying more and more things varying with more power in the state hands.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I still also think states would go overboard with "what's in their best interest". Look at the abortion and execution laws from state to state. They vary immensely. I see things varying more and more things varying with more power in the state hands.

That's EXACTLY the point. There is no need for a one-size-fits-all type of government. States would be free to shape laws and regulations based on input from the citizens. Some states, like Kansas, may indeed outlaw abortion, and the state would attract people that found value in that. Other states, like California, may not, and would attract people there based on that (and other regulatory positions).

The point is there would be much more freedom for people to actually craft the type of government they want to endure. Some may elect to live in a state with tons of regulations, high taxes, larger government, etc., and some may be just fine living in a state with low taxes, but low government involvement and the corresponding smaller number of government programs.

The point of this is choice.

[Ddrak]

That's easy, the Patriot Act.

Not impressed. Did Libertarians vote for the Republicans who pushed that legislation through? Yes. Don't ask me, ask Cato:

After two more years of war, wiretapping, and welfare-state social spending, we found similar patterns in 2006. In the Zogby survey, 59 percent of libertarians voted for Republican candidates for Congress, and 36 percent voted for Democrats. Comparing those results to the last off-year election in 2002, we find a 24 percentage point swing to the Democrats. That is, libertarians voted for Republican congressional candidates by a margin of 47 percentage points in 2002, and of only 23 points in 2006.

I don't see how a 24 point swing TO the Dems proves your point.

Dd

[Harlowe]

State politicians and local politicians are certainly not more corrupt. Besides most of those people work on the federal level as well, so what are you talking about? You're saying the Executive and Judicial branches are less corrupt because why? There is more power held among less people? There certainly is not more transparency and over-site within the Executive branch.

Hell we know more about local corruption because it's incredibly EASY to uncover it. For the very reason that everyone in a small town knows everyone else's business.

[Select]

That's EXACTLY the point. There is no need for a one-size-fits-all type of government.

Everything isn't the same now. I pointed out a few situations in which states are different so it isn't one-size-fits-all. I like that things can vary, but they're still reigned in. I see black sheep states taking things way too far into right or left field. I admit that with my current views, I like having a leash on the states. I'm very young and subject to change my views as I learn and grow more, but at least I'm not seeing it as anarchy at 30-something

Hell we know more about local corruption because it's incredibly EASY to uncover it.

Right, it is easy to uncover it now. I think with more power in state and local hands, they would find ways to make it harder to be caught. A lot of the corruption went on for years and years before they finally cracked down.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/06/ ... index.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=15334483
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1352722/posts
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/0 ... n_ind.html

[Embar Angylwrath]

As with most young and inexperienced people (actually, inexperienced.. not young, my apologies to other younger people out there), you are largely driven by fear of the unknown. As you get older, and have to do shit all on your own, you'll form your political views based largely on how you see yourself fitting in the world. You may become like Harlowe, and embrace independence and accept responsibility for your actions, or you may end up like Klast, Lurker and Partha, who think big government actually makes them safer and more secure, and prefer an entity that pats them on the ass and tells them everything is ok.

Look at this this way Select... Klast, Lurker and Partha are serioulsy pissed off about the last eight years of the administration. Hopping mad. Almost insanse with anger. And what have they been able to do about it?

Nothing.

Smaller political groups (like at the state level) can respond to and effect change more quickly than a Byzantine beauracracy. Direct accountability by politicians (which is lacking at the federal level, but mostly preserved at the state level), is a big stick when swung at a politician. Ever notice how they all line up for credit, but never want to take any blame? A smaller government allows for greater transparency, its less complicated, and more responsive to its constituency. And there's less places to hide when shit goes south.

[Lurker]

You may become like Harlowe, and embrace independence and accept responsibility for your actions, or you may end up like Klast, Lurker and Partha, who think big government actually makes them safer and more secure, and prefer an entity that pats them on the ass and tells them everything is ok.

While you don't want to admit it, most Americans want those government programs that you think are the root of all evil. That's why big 'L' libertarians won't thrive in this country. That's why Republicans, for all their fake whining about big government, won't actually touch those programs. There's a reason Republicans try to run issue free campaigns of character assassination, or try to distort their positions on issues, or try to exploit hot button social wedge issues... their ideology isn't popular.

I don't think 'big government' makes us safer and more secure, but I know for a fact that broken government makes us less safe and less secure. You support a party that has done serious and lasting harm to our country and you don't care. That's pathetic.

Look at this this way Select... Klast, Lurker and Partha are serioulsy pissed off about the last eight years of the administration. Hopping mad. Almost insanse with anger. And what have they been able to do about it?

Nothing.

Actually, it's Klast, Lurker, Partha, and about 65% of the country that's pissed about the last eight years. And what have we done about it? Voted the Republicans out of office... that's what.

[Harlowe]

I've been seriously pissed off at this administration for oooh 6-7 years now. I get more livid each year. I think just about anyone would have done a better job. Anyone that would have directed our energy somewhere other than Iraq that is.

[Partha]

That's easy, the Patriot Act.

Not impressed. Did Libertarians vote for the Republicans who pushed that legislation through? Yes. Don't ask me, ask Cato:

After two more years of war, wiretapping, and welfare-state social spending, we found similar patterns in 2006. In the Zogby survey, 59 percent of libertarians voted for Republican candidates for Congress, and 36 percent voted for Democrats. Comparing those results to the last off-year election in 2002, we find a 24 percentage point swing to the Democrats. That is, libertarians voted for Republican congressional candidates by a margin of 47 percentage points in 2002, and of only 23 points in 2006.

I don't see how a 24 point swing TO the Dems proves your point.

Dd

It proves to me that at least a strong majority of 'Libertarians' care more about their tax rate than what their government does. Embar and Kulaf prove the point. Torture by government official? Cool beans, as long as it's offshore. Entangling foreign interests and wars? Oh, they SAY they hate it, but they find all kinds of reasons to justify it. Corrupt officials? Sure, they're BIG on condemnation, just look at the record here on the boards. Government is a smokescreen, as long as the poor schlubs don't get their MONEH.

[Ddrak]

Whatever. All it says is that an increasing number of people that identify themselves as "Libertarian" are voting for the Democrats. It doesn't say whether that group of people has become larger or smaller, has drawn from Republican or Democratic base or what their reasons for voting a particular way are. I'd suggest that many of the GOP votes are because they think the GOP is the lesser of two evils - after all, a large part of Libertarianism is actually about lower taxes and fewer government programs at the federal level.

Perhaps if you said why the Democrats are a closer match to the Libertarian philosophy than the GOP is then you'd be making sense?

Dd

[Partha]

Dd, which party is the one who opposes broad wiretapping, the Total Information Network, no-knock warrants, and the denial of Constitutional rights to accused Americans? Which one supports broad decriminalization of marijuana? Which one supports PAYGO for all new federal spending? Those are my markers, not my tax rate.

[Ddrak]

Dd, which party is the one who opposes broad wiretapping, the Total Information Network, no-knock warrants, and the denial of Constitutional rights to accused Americans? Which one supports broad decriminalization of marijuana? Which one supports PAYGO for all new federal spending?

The Dems, which is why you're seeing a 20 point move towards them in the Cato study. However, the GOP still generally favors a smaller government than the Dems (despite their financial stupidity), which makes the whole thing less appealing to the Libertarian component in polls.

If you had an instant runoff system, I'd suspect the GOP would see a huge chunk of the vote vanishing to the Libertarians.

Dd