The industrial monopolists/robber barons did gain a lot of power, but I feel like that would've happened with our without a strong central government. Carnegie started his "Empire of Steel" about 10-15 years after "The Civil war" (and yes the proper name is "The Civil War" - I don't think the South gets to name it if they fired first, fought for slavery, and then lost - sorry but I really draw the line on that). The monopolists had even more control over the state and local governments than they did over the Feds. Which is scary given the level of control they had - even past the busting of the 1900s all the way through the 1920s. But that's one reason, ironically as it has sometimes turned out in modern times, that many states created ballot initiatives to try to get around the monopolist control of their state and local governments.

Well sometimes it is people's business beyond the state, because it means a section of the population becomes essentially unfit for education and civil life. States as they currently exist seem a little ... outdated. I know I may take some flak for that, but consider a state like California: A conservative agro-farmer in the inland empire has little to nothing in common politically with a hippie in Santa Cruz. Meanwhile, the big cities in California have more in common with the big cities in Texas or North Carolina and likewise so do the countrysides between each respective state than the countryside and the cities do with each other within any given state. Even that paints too broad a brush as some countrysides are liberal and some cities are conservative. I just don't see the states as they are set up currently to have that any more "moral authority" than the Feds when it come to governing.

There are certain things which are good to at least set boundaries on at the national level - things that are important for the nation. And now more than ever, people move all over the map within the US - spend at least part of the time in different states or at least different parts of the state they grew up in. So what one state does - what one piece does, does affect the whole country. Education is a very personal issue, I get that - but interjecting a particular religion into the class room is a clear 1st and 14th amendment violation (1st - the establishment clause and 14th - that the US constitution applies the states, they can't violate the US constitution either).

This is not to say that there aren't things which are incredibly important to keep local or have strong local components. The details of the actual implementation of policy is always more effective at local levels - that doesn't mean there shouldn't be national policy, organization, or support, but that offices responsive to the needs of the local people will be best able to tailor programs to those needs (as long as they are not corrupt or incompetent).

However, the 3/5ths clause ... yeah that's part of the reason why I hate appeals to the founders in arguments. And why I was amused that when the Tea Party required every member in the House to read the Constitution out loud ... they skipped that part. :) Jefferson also wrote that he hoped people would look back on them as barbarous ancestors. So while we should respect what the founders created (and the constitution is an incredible document), we should indeed also remember that our country was born of compromise, some of it anathema to our modern morality, and it was not until The Civil War that America was unable to live with much of that compromise.

See, there is the dichotomy in your position (IMO). You can't decentralize something and then expect to better serve the population. You would, again IMO, have multiple little entities spread across many places that have no central coordination.

Take for example, a natural disaster like a hurricane. Would it be better to have 5 or more independent entities trying to do stuff, possibly getting in each other's way and fighting over limited supplies, since naturally each State would think their own problems take priority over someone else? Or to have one central coordinator assessing the damage and parcelling out supplies based upon need rather than want?

I'm not saying that's what our current setup does, but rather an idealized version of what it should be doing.

Centralized power, again IMO, is a natural evolutionary by-product of human government. Especially when you have a civilization spread over a large area with a diverse population base.

Because letting each individual State set what is an "acceptable" curriculum makes for a nightmare for colleges as well as expectations for what a student should know at a given point in their educational level (especially given the ease with which people can move and change school systems). Teaching Creationism only leads to colleges having to undo that malarkey (when they could be teaching actual science) as well as making the country a laughing stock that we espouse as "science" a magical, invisible man in the sky making everything in six days that can never be proven nor disproven.

Creationism also tends to be the Christian-centric viewpoint which doesn't take into account other viewpoints. It tacitly endorses that religion as the "official" religion. There's nothing inherently wrong with teaching Creationism, so long as it isn't taught in a science classroom, you give equal time to the other major religions, and make the class completely elective. It could make a good class on how different cultures, before the advent of modern science, dealt with coming to terms with their environment.

I don't really disagree with any of your points, my stance is solely that I don't think we should use these people as social standards to aspire to. Their words about limited government control are especially focused on by many as wise, yet these people used a lack of control to do terrible things.

I'm fine with viewing their acts in context, I'm not fine with holding them up as examples.
For the same reason "big government" does a lot of things, the reason a lot of conservatives cannot see, which is that what happens in Kansas effects what happens in New York, and following that Afghanistan. We're all connected.

Purposeful ignorance harms our nation.

It depends on what you are talking about. I would like transfer payments (such as Social Security, Welfare, Medicare) to be totally regonally/locally based (like Medicaid). I think this would allow folks in each area to better serve the needs of people in their community.

I also believe that certain federal departments would be better at a regional or local level. Departments including, but not limited to, Education, Energy (that which concerns nuclear energy and such should be moved to Defense), and Labor.

I want each state to get different service, because each state has different needs.

You mention a national disaster as one of your examples. This is one case where the cerntral government would help, I do not deny this. However, it doesn't mean that much of the day-to-day governing of states shouldn't be decentralized.

I think diversity is a strength. I don't think everyone wants or needs the same things to survive. Freedom is about being allowed to make your own life choices, be they right or wrong. Trying to shoehorn everyone into a single idea of right/wrong is not freedom, it is fascism. Regardless of which side of the issue you are on.

The problem is, if Kansas is just teaching Creationism, where's the freedom for the people that don't believe? Why do they get their freedom trampled on, that they aren't free to live where their family took roots and are forced to move? (Admitted ignorance here, but I have a MUCH larger post coming, and I'm taking some potshots at my governor, Christie <.<)

That is an issue for the inhabitants of Kansas to decide, not for the federal government to dictate.

But then, where do those payments originate from? Some States may not have the amount of workers necessary to support the population of that State's need for payment. You would need a larger, central entity that can say, "Alright, this State has an overabundance of workers and can more than support the aging population. We can use some of this money over in <x> State that has a higher percentage of retirees.".

Again, the Education bit wouldn't work. Education standards mean that someone from New Jersey can be expected to know the same basic things as someone from Wyoming. Allowing individual States to set up their own standards would mean a student from one State moving to another would either be overeducated such that the school couldn't actually teach him or woefully undereducated such that the school would need to set up remedial classes.

Energy isn't a State-level concern. Given that our power plants routinely sell energy to neighboring States, as well as ones decently far away, it needs someone to mandate the transmission equipment and standards for that delivery. It also prevents States from setting up preferential treatment for their own Energy industry.

Each State does have different needs. However, actions performed in one State can have radical effects in a neighboring one. Imagine if, say, one State says that the industry there can remove all the water they want from an aquifer or river. Other States may share that aquifer and river and end up completely screwed.

Or one State has a very hands-off approach to pollution controls. Just because a smokestack is located in one State doesn't mean that the smog from it can't travel to another.

Day to day governing such as deciding which roads get fixed this year? That's fine and a proper distribution of local control vs Federal control. But the things you mention don't simply affect the local environment. They can have effects over the country as a whole.


There has never been, nor ever will be true "freedom" in any form of government short of anarchy. You are not "free" to go on a random killing spree and not expect society to say, "That shit ain't right. You got to go.". Now, people can determine if they want to execute or simply incarcerate that person, but regardless of what they determine, society has a pretty hard idea on that being "wrong".

Diversity is a good thing, but society has come up with general ideas on what is right and wrong for a reason.

But what you're describing is the same thing you don't want from the Federal government. Just because it's a state doesn't give them that right to dictate in this regard. If a family moves because of work, from Kansas into say, NJ, and their child is 15, seen just creationism his whole life. Is it fair that now the rest of the child's science class has to be slowed down to unteach him, that he might have to be held back because he can't pass classes that teach different things?

This is true, but I have to admit my bias here: I don't like federally mandated wealth transfers. If money must be stolen, but government mandate, from the pockets of the wealthy to give to the less fortunate, then I would at least like the money to remain local. Will this create inter-regional inequality? I am pretty certain it would. However, just like I don't think it is the duty of one person to support another, neither do I think it is the duty of one region of the country to support another.

I am still not seeing how this is a federal problem. This seems like a problem for the people inhabiting these locales and their families. If it makes it tough for admissions departments an Universities, then so be it. Entrance exams, standardized test, and admission essay questions are not unheard of.

I think states can negotiate and handle these energy deals on their own. If there is a contractual disagreement, or some such, then that is when the federal government can step in. As for states setting up preferential treatment for the Energy industry, this would be the major reason I would for for this! I want each state to be able to exploit their resources as they best see fit.

And, this is another good place for the federal government to step in. As oversight. Do note, that I never said I wanted to get rid of the Dept. of Commerce.

I still believe each person should be able to pursue their own happiness as they see fit, as long as they intend no harm on another. As Voltaire wrote in Candide, I believe that each person should be free to cultivate their own garden.

Anyway, it is apparent that we have vastly different paradigms. Feel free to answer and refute my points, but I am not sure we can come to an agreement here. I think our vision of the place of government, and what is 'fair', is fundamentally different.
It is a question of scale. On a local level, regional minorities, such as Evangelicals in Kansas, have a bigger voice. I believe their voices should be heard.

That family that moves from NJ to Kansas can vote against the practice of teaching Creationism in school. That is their right.

I'm going to argue, and I understand this was focused on Congress on a federal level, First Amendment here. Freedom of religion in that regard. And you got my example backwards. It's not an NJ family moving to Kansas, but a KANSAS family moving to NJ (And all of the headaches that would entail).

I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that when it comes to governing, my spiritual beliefs hold no weight or water in any conversation, and I expect others to come with the same understanding. I don't ram my beliefs down someone's throat, and I expect them not to try to ram theirs down mine. That's what bothers me about this. It's blatantly forcing religious doctrine where it honestly does not belong.

An Education standard is sorely needed. We're slowly becoming a dumber and dumber nation because there are no standards, and we've made everything too flexible. No one is a special snowflake who is beyond being held back or pushed into classes more tailored for slower learning, instead of holding the rest of the class back. I accept that not everyone is academically capable (Some people can't take tests, some people are smart with no common sense, and some people are creative but not grounded in reality, etc, etc.), but we need a standard to be able to say 'Everyone who has graduated High School has met these minimum requirements and can handle going to the next step in their lives, be it College, a Vocational School, or into the job market on a basic level'. But that's another argument for another time and I might be better off having left this whole paragraph out, but whatever, it's written.

Edit: An Education standard doesn't mean we can't have classes devoted to Religion, Arts, Music, and whatnot. But it means that things like Language, Math, Science, Geography and History have to have a distinct level that students are required to take. If you want to take a class on Religions, that's great, but that can't take the place of a Science course. I have a lot to say on education and where it can go, but I don't want to go too far into it, and I don't want to skim the top so that people make assumptions that aren't there.

Society is all about supporting one another and helping out for the good of the whole as opposed to the good of the individual. It was the whole point of humanity forming civilizations and societies. Without the support of one another, there would've been no point in anything other than single family units wandering the planet.

That inter-region inequality would be one of the driving forces for one State to decide to form a militia and take what they are lacking from another.

And how can a student pass those entrance exams to colleges if they've never been exposed to the material on a prior basis?

By leaving it local, you also have the downside of creating a class or region of people that are not competitive. Which area would anything beyond the most basic of industries rather go to? One where the people are ignorant and don't have a grasp of how things actually work? Or one where the people have a greater understanding of the world around them and how things interact with each other?

Ignorance breeds ignorance after all.

Except when those preferential treatments impact their citizens because they end up having to pay more for OTHER things that can't be made/mined/grown/etc within their own localities.

Their own garden is fine, but what happens when I decide I want your garden as well? I can take it without harming you, by my standards, but maybe not by yours.

That's because, and forgive me for saying so, you seem to be someone who has read Atlas Shrugged but can't see the larger implications of such a structure of society. Your way of thinking may have been applicable in the 17th century when people didn't and couldn't move around much, but that world is gone, and barring some catastrophic disaster, isn't coming back.

There is a definite balance to be achieved between the good of the group and the good of the individual. Swinging too far one way is just as bad as swinging too far the other. For instance, I think the current government swings too far into the "good" of the group in terms of morality statutes such as prostitution, drugs, gay marriage, and abortion (things that should be best left to the individual to decide), but swings too far in term of individuality statutes for financial concerns, environmental concerns, education concerns, etc. (things that should be for the good of society as a whole).

The balance you seem to want to strike isn't it. Is mine it? *shrug* I don't know, but it makes sense to me.

Not one for politics, im happy Obama got reelected. If Romney had gotten in, it would have been quite f***** for Australia apparently or so friends claim...

Oh you're better than that argument. Societies create rules for the benefit of everyone all the time, even in very conservative countries like this one.

Ok, on Christie. You'll have to forgive the lack of sources, but campaign BS is making navigating google to be far more of a pain then I'm willing to put up with.

I find it hard to believe that people want Christie elsewhere. Part of it is, I'm a Jersey resident, I've seen everything that he does first hand. What I haven't realized, is that most of this isn't really, in the public eye. Most of my friends have complimented him on his dealings with the storm (And I'm forced to agree, he did a good job), but none of them realized what he's done and the personality that he really has.

Education is where I fault him the most. He screwed up a basic grant/loan/whatever from the Federal Government that the state would have easily gotten, money that would have gone to education that wouldn't have cost the state a dime. He tried to cut education by such a degree (And in such an uneven, aimed way that it would have affected poor urban areas far far FAR more then more wealthy areas) that the State Supreme Court had to step in and enforce a state law that doesn't strike me as too hard to do (Balancing education funds evenly across the whole state).

He started a war against the Teacher's and the Teacher's Union (My opinion for state employees is, let the union be, when your wage depends on the moods of other people in such a degree you do need some protection. But I see both sides of the Union argument, soooo....), and inciting the people against teachers. His answer, more standardized tests to 'evaluate the teachers' (A local newspaper talked about this, and basically it was put out that the people developing the tests weren't really educators either), even though I think most people agree that large scale standardized tests are more jokes then actual points of learning. (SATs were the last ones I took, and most classes that taught it, taught it less as an education standard, and more as a 'Here's how to take the test, and it doesn't actually make sense').

He also had proposed the elimination of the public school system, in exchange for 'vouchers' for Private Schools, and the conversion of the whole Public system to a Private one. I have issues with this too.

He's more then just a bit of a bully, and whenever I hear him talk about things he doesn't like he always seems to want to make a bad guy. It isn't enough to have an opinion, he has to have someone to demonize, like the Teachers.

And a few things I forgot earlier.

The problem I see with raw decentralization is the simple fact of, too many cooks. As I said, Technology is making our world seem vastly smaller, and at the same time bigger. Small businesses differ from state to state, but you see lots more large scale businesses that easily cross state lines. The internet making things like this discussion possible with people from all over the world.

I use the original size of the US as an example when I've mentioned this to others because it's worth saying. The original 13 states are fairly close together, they get similar weather patterns, many having ports near the ocean. There's similar experiences that binded them together and a feel that they needed each other, a feel of something greater then the individual states. But at the same time, long travel time due to technology and the limited forms of communication made it difficult for a central government to meet the needs of everyone without being bogged down.

Nowadays, I can fly to see my friend in Missouri, and the trip would take 2-3 hours. I voice chat with him almost every night, and play games with him via online services such as Steam, Battle.net, XBL, and servers set up by other friends. When Sandy hit I spent over an hour on my cell phone texting people to let them know I was alright and what was going on.

Decentralization doesn't serve us because our technology is actively and constantly pulling us closer together. I have a friend in Iowa who has 2 boys who are going to elementary/intermediate schools through online courses, Video lectures, and trips to specific locations.

The world doesn't see Kansas, NJ, NC, Florida, Georgia, California, they see the United States. I'm not advocating for a strong central government that decides everything and anything, but I am saying that we can't keep pretending that our old systems work. We have to evolve our own system of government and how we approach the world. Our constitution was amended multiple times, proving that our founding fathers either made mistakes (Limiting who can vote), or that the world has changed and we've had to as well (Many other amendments).

We don't have to follow the EU example, and in many ways we can't. I'm not sure how many of our states could remain financially functional without the assistance they get from our government, so it can't be a simple economic union. But we can see what works for others, and adapt it and change it so that things work, that we can be a part of the world and rise to meet the challenges of the future, whatever they may be.

Ok, I've rambled for far too long now, lol. And probably got off topic too. Again, I'm not very political, I'm aware I can't make everyone happy, but I can try to push a balance so that there's a way for everyone to have surviving ideals and to keep them both connected, and capable of contributing to the world around us.

He seems no-nonsense, which a ton of people (me included) love. It's a rare thing now-a-days to see a politician call a reporter stupid and refuse to answer his asinine question. When I saw a clip of that I almost changed parties and started fundraising for the guy.

If he ever ran for President though the mainstream media and left-leaning networks would probably crucify him, which might be why he keeps saying he never will. Also as awesome as I find him as NJ governor my politics would probably keep me from voting for him as President.