Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
dmaestro 15-Oct-12, 17:57	Strict constructionism I disagree that liberals ignore the constitution. As for strict constructionists, that is exactly the problem. This is not 1787. We are not a weak agriculturally and settler based nation of less than 4M people. The founders never intended for the constitution to be like the 10 commandments fixed in stone, but rather a framework to build upon because they believed in human progress. And you actually miss the most important problem the founders warned against but could not preclude, the party system. The founders compromised and built their government around the center and centrist compromises. Modern tea party conservatism has about as much flexibility as any other cult.6
softaire 15-Oct-12, 21:35	dm I'd be willing to discuss this with you if you'd stop taking such stupid cheap-shots like that against the Tea Party, conservatives, Republicans. It demeans the entire discussion and ruins any good points you might actually have made. Even interpreting the Constitution by "strict constructionism" it still is a method of running the government which works whether for an agricultural society, an industrial society, or an information society. It works in any case. It allows for changes to itself, by Amendment. It accommodates changes to society via legislation. It provides for recovery from legislative abuse via the judiciary. Each branch has its' role and its' constraints. The major concern of the founders was the possibility of government (one branch or the entire thing) becoming too large and powerful, usurping the power that rightfully belongs to the individual states and the people. The founders realized they needed a central government that could accomplish certain things (and those things are specified), but the major focus was on providing a framework for that central government that protects the states and the people from that large central government. Protecting states rights and individual rights and freedoms was most important. The goal was to NOT allow a large, abusive central government to develop, one that oversees and controls the lives of its' citizens... too much possibility for abuse (as we are seeing today).
dmaestro 16-Oct-12, 08:34	Later. My immediate reaction is that the rights and welfare of the people are more important than those of the states. There is far too much involuntary movement between states than there was in 1787. There is a 5000% variation in population between states.
chaz5 16-Oct-12, 08:58	... the founding fathers were successful! We now have one country, the United States of America. Has it become a question of whether we're stronger because of states' rights? Or, are we stronger because we're one successful, large country?
softaire 16-Oct-12, 22:06	dm "There is a 5000% variation in population between states." Thank you! That is EXACTLY why the states should be in control of most of their own doings and have a government of their people, for their people and by their people. The states need to manage their own economies, create their own local laws, produce their own education, regulate their own industries, determine their own tax policies... because they will know what is in their own best interest much better than a massive bureaucracy far, far away. The states do NOT generally need a huge, one-size-fits-all massive central government over-controlling them, over-taxing them, and wasting their money. People will then be free to move to the state that best fits their individual goals and dreams. The massive federal central government still retains it's important role as specified in the Constitution. And, remember... that which is NOT specifically given (meaning rights and duties) to that massive central government, is reserved for the states and the people.
chaz5 17-Oct-12, 07:14	Softy ... ... good post inasmuch as it describes well your thoughts. I appreciate that even though I think many people have grown to think about it differently ... so I disagree. Only a strong central gov't can balance the wealth and muscle of the mega corporations who have taken on their own role as government. Individual states cannot compete against these behemoths ... corporations who buy legislators who make laws in their favor ... who we do not even elect ... are really running the country. This is a legitimate concern, and IMHO, one significant reason we may have the divide we do politically, a situation that could not have been foreseen by the founding fathers ... a situation that today's mega corporations will fight strenuously to keep in their own favor. Besides the fact that people cannot easily just get up and move to another state easily, just who actually represents their interests anymore? An elite Congress (who live by their own rules anyhow) paid well by these corporations? Can you appreciate my concerns?
softaire 17-Oct-12, 07:59	chaz Good post and I share those concerns. The states however would really be in the "drivers seat" if the federal government were to get out of the way. Corporations and small business are even now moving to states were it is a better business advantage. California has lost a ton of entire industries, as well as large and small businesses to Texas, Nevada, Arizona etc. Of course, many of those employees migrate with them. The states can set their own tax rates, manage their own state personnel agencies which provide for workers compensation, insurance requirements etc. In this scenario states are in competition with all other states and companies and individuals are free to choose which is best for them. It is a two-way street... states compete for the business, jobs, and taxes provided by the corporations and in return corporations must comply with the regulations of the state, pay the taxes, and provide the jobs. And, of course, they still must comply with federal regulations, pay taxes there etc. so I do not see them as able to run "roughshod" over states any more than they do now. The amount of control they exercise is determined by what they "contribute" to politicians... control that and you control the corporations. Washington is simply a huge bureaucracy which sucks money out of the states to pay for itself. That money would be better spent simply by staying in the state. It would be better utilized paying for their own schools, roads, community improvements etc. without the wasteful overhead of feeding the huge waste in Washington. It would be both more efficient and effective. Don't get me wrong... there is still a need for a federal government to do many of the things it does do. We still need to pay some taxes (just not nearly that much) for the things the central government should do (which is not nearly as much as it is today). We still do need some regulation (just not as much as we have today) and most would be better created at the local and state level.
chaz5 17-Oct-12, 08:55	Softy ... ... thanks for the thoughtful response. I can see and understand your point; but, I still don't trust the corporations as much as you do. States, strapped for cash, are manipulated by corporations right now ... "We'll build a plant in Louisiana or Arizona if we get exempt from property taxes" [etc.] ... and I understand the argument about the value of jobs, economic stimuli, etc. ... but it's the corporations who call the shots even at the state level. It's easier to deal with the untrained eyes at the state level than a powerful [albeit bureaucratic] govt agency in WDC. But I understand your 'small govt' viewpoint ... I just don't trust corporate motives; and, evidence abounds that they're calling most of the shots already.
thumper 17-Oct-12, 09:00	It's the people who have the real power, they just don't know it.
chaz5 17-Oct-12, 09:12	Thumper ... ... I believe you are absolutely correct on that point.
dmaestro 17-Oct-12, 10:40	Any system that does not give people the power would be unacceptable. Thumper is correct. I agree with Chaz about the concerns. For example, if states become like nation states economically we will see the same rush to the bottom we see under globalization. Yet softaire is correct that local concerns are often best managed locally. This is an area where compromise is possible, IMO.

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, chess teams, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.