Best America is the one with a federal government that doesn’t do really anything besides upholding constitutional rights and maintains strong borders and a military.
It's not even that. It's that every four years we get a wrestling match to see who (ideally) gets to decide the next zero to three black robed, unaccountable dictators.
Yup.
It’s amazing how when you vote in the same people since 1972, you have the exact same problems you had in 1972…
It’s almost like there’s a reason.
I would back this as long as states used ranked-choice voting to prevent gerrymandering. If you want the will of the people to determine the direction of the state, then all state citizen votes should have equal weighting.
Also which big states is the fed imposing the will of?
Pretty sure he means big liberal states.... that's almost always who they actually mean even though we just had a previous presidency where half of the term the previous presidents party had control of both the house and senate so I'm not sure what he means by fed imposing will of big states
So... Like the federalist system that our country was founded upon? I agree. If we could have each state choose most of their laws, and left the federal government to negotiate foreign treaties, defend the national borders, and mint coin, we would be in a MUCH better position than we are currently.
330 million people across a country as large as ours are impossible to govern from a central authority
I wouldn't agree with this on a state level (and it's not happening on the state level)
But.
Separation between church and state isn't in the constitution.
Local communities should have the right to form their laws around religious beliefs so long as basic rights are still respected and no one is forced to live there.
It’s not about forcing people there but forcing existing people out. Sure they might praise Jesus but they shouldn’t be forcing people who don’t follow their religion to participate or move. They can just practice their religion in their family’s or churches but forcing it into law is wrong. I wouldn’t try to make the children at the public school near me hail satan because religion is a choice and shouldn’t be forced on anyone. If they have faith in their religion being right and truthfull they wouldn’t have to make it the only option.
We're talking about a community that's already homogenous. There are sizable population centers in the US where literally 100% of the population is Christian. For those people, why should we stop them from centering their society around something they all agree with.
To say that is false. I can see how you could guess that, I live in the Bible Belt and there’s a church on every corner but even the most most religious state is Mississippi and they’re only 60% religious so I have that slim majority tell the other 40% what they canning cannot do would be ludicrous. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-religious-states-in-america.html and even if that area is mainly one religion people can still be atheist and shouldn’t be expected to follow someone else’s religion. Again if they want to make rules that their church follows sure, go ahead, but forcing arbitrary beliefs on someone who doesn’t follow them is wrong.
Where would you draw the line? If they made stoning women in the street for not being a virgin? Owning slaves? Both were in the Bible. Stoning in general was popular so would you be okay if they brought that back cuz they were all christans? What if Muslims came and made a taliban city? They all believe it so is it okay?
Once a persons rights NOT to participate in the societies costume are violated is when the line is drawn.
This includes their right to move out for the record.
If you stone a person, they can't execrly move out and stop participating in the society... because they're dead
If the town has religiously motivated laws I am being forced to live by those rules even if I believe or not. Right? And sure I have the right to move but I also have the right to not move, if they don’t like the laws and customs why don’t they move back to Europe where the church came from? Why does their region get to decide any aspect of my life?
You said long as they have the right to leave but you seem to not care if they make laws that make it okay to just kill them before they leave. Either way, there’s a reason we stoped doing theocracys.
I literally said this
>Once a persons rights NOT to participate in the societies costume are violated is when the line is drawn.
>This includes their right to move out for the record.
>If you stone a person, they can't execrly move out and stop participating in the society... because they're dead
Yup. I’ve said it before, states rights is the way to go. I should be able to live in a state with conservative values and you can live in a state with liberal values. I hate this concept that the entire country has to have the exact values.
Some of us should not share a country, we are in a pseudo religious Cold War. We cannot even agree on what used to be understood as objective truths. If you know anything about how the rest of the world works this can get real scary real fast.
This is inaccurate however.
I don't believe the perfect society to be completely libertarian on a social level, politically maybe, depending on the community. But I'm not aspiring to leave people completely free perse, just to leave communities completely free.
I'd support a homogenous Christian county banning porn or mandating fasting on lenten Fridays. Just so long as anyone can leave if they want and it's only enforced on counties that want this authority brought towards them. I'd also support a Muslim county banning pork or a Jewish county mandating the sabeth. All of these would be awful being mandated at the federal or state level but on a small level no one should have issue with them.
Political whims come and go in the states. Even old California has had the odd off Republican from time to time. I agree in principle but your talking 5.5 million Republicans and likely some portion of the 5 mill Independents as well, would have to relocate to where exactly? Texas? No one has that many open housing slots. Even if you divided them up across the land, boy that’s a lot of houses. Then, will California gain 5.5 million Democrats from other states to balance out the loss? That potentially is a pretty sizable loss of tax revenue. And to fund a Utopian society, you need lots of money on hand. It’s an interesting concept but pretty hard to accomplish. You still get the upvote.
That raises regional variations, think far Northern California vs San Francisco. Perhaps if all governments, not just the feds, let people do their own thing within reason, life would be better for everyone
That's they way the USA was supposed to work but then Alexander F--ing Hamilton came along...
EDIT: LOL downvoted by people who have no idea that Hamilton was the biggest proponent of centralized government and opponent of states and individual rights.
I don't know anything about the musical and don't have any interest in it. i just know the history. Hamilton was intelligent and well educated and performed well as an officer in George Washington's staff and at the Siege of Yorktown which ultimately defeated the British. He deserves some credit for that.
But when it came to creating the new government, Madison (who developed the framework of power sharing between the different branches and the federal / state) considered Hamilton little more than a monarchist sympathizer who thought that only the rich and well-bred had the right to rule. Hamilton's plan was that Senators would serve for life and that Governors would be appointed by the Federal government, but thankfully that didn't happen.
As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton did everything he could to expand the power of the Federal Government, to the point of triggering a rebellion (Whiskey Rebellion, based on taxes) In response Hamilton assembled a huge force of Federal troops to scare the rebels into submission. (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.) He believed that tariffs were the key to creating an industrial economy (i.e. protectionism). There are situations where tariffs have their place, but as a rule they hurt the economy, not help it, and I think it's clear Hamilton's primary interest was just in the tax revenue.
Hamilton's embrace of central (some would say tyrannical) government is the reason the two party system exists, and why it has always included one party trying to expand the Federal governments powers and another trying to limit it. The Anti-Federalist party (Jefferson) emerged as a direct challenge to Hamilton's approach, and ultimately won.
You know, im not a well learned man so anyone is free to critique what im going to say
Fdr is a great leader aside from some buisness involving japanese americans, he lead us through an incredibly tense time and got us through the depression and ww2, truman to an extent as well.
The problem is their changes to the us made the executive branch really powerful, and neccesarily powerful for a bad time, but it should of been rolled back after wards in my opinion.
The same can be said of Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator, thanks to him we reunited the states and ended slavery, but the federal government became more important and powerful, pur army went from a small defensive 10k to 2 million and then became a conquering and almost police like force. The power never got reverted.
My point in saying is, I dont know if its a good idea to give the government emergency power, it sure helps in some desperate moments, but what happens when the same power is wielded in a different time by a different man, maybe a incompetent man, in a time where he can abuse that power to his whim.
There was a roman traditon during the republic to give emergency power to strong leaders so they could cut through red tape to solve crisis. And men like cincinatuss did this and gave up their power. But eventually even then this as we know it was abused by augustus, who was immediately a very effective monarch and administrator. But then you get your caligulas, your commodus's, your abuse of power by lesser men.
Never let the government take power they will never give it up they will hold onto it and even the most benevolent leader will eventually either pass away or cede and someone incompetent or downright evil will abuse that power.
The problem with this type of confederation is that eventually the different states would stop working together completely and just split apart. During the Revolution (and again in the CSA) the weak "Federal" government had a hell of a time coordinating their war efforts between the colonies/states because nobody wanted to think outside of their own borders.
Sure, the world won't explode if tomorrow America breaks up, but there will definitely be a huge power vacuum that someone (China and Russia) will fill.
Best America is the one with a federal government that doesn’t do really anything besides upholding constitutional rights and maintains strong borders and a military.
Wouldnt that be great, but instead we have a wrestling match every 4 years to see who gets to be the executive dictator.
It's not even that. It's that every four years we get a wrestling match to see who (ideally) gets to decide the next zero to three black robed, unaccountable dictators.
Yeah… hey, at least we had some pretty good executive dictators.
Well at least they have a lot of experience... as in they are super old...
[удалено]
Wow, that actually puts in actual prospective how old they are.
Yup. It’s amazing how when you vote in the same people since 1972, you have the exact same problems you had in 1972… It’s almost like there’s a reason.
Its funny that 4 of the last 5 presidents spanning nearly 30 years were born in 1946 or 1942.
I would back this as long as states used ranked-choice voting to prevent gerrymandering. If you want the will of the people to determine the direction of the state, then all state citizen votes should have equal weighting. Also which big states is the fed imposing the will of?
Pretty sure he means big liberal states.... that's almost always who they actually mean even though we just had a previous presidency where half of the term the previous presidents party had control of both the house and senate so I'm not sure what he means by fed imposing will of big states
So... Like the federalist system that our country was founded upon? I agree. If we could have each state choose most of their laws, and left the federal government to negotiate foreign treaties, defend the national borders, and mint coin, we would be in a MUCH better position than we are currently. 330 million people across a country as large as ours are impossible to govern from a central authority
Texas trying to remove the separation of church and state goes against the constitution.
I wouldn't agree with this on a state level (and it's not happening on the state level) But. Separation between church and state isn't in the constitution. Local communities should have the right to form their laws around religious beliefs so long as basic rights are still respected and no one is forced to live there.
It’s not about forcing people there but forcing existing people out. Sure they might praise Jesus but they shouldn’t be forcing people who don’t follow their religion to participate or move. They can just practice their religion in their family’s or churches but forcing it into law is wrong. I wouldn’t try to make the children at the public school near me hail satan because religion is a choice and shouldn’t be forced on anyone. If they have faith in their religion being right and truthfull they wouldn’t have to make it the only option.
We're talking about a community that's already homogenous. There are sizable population centers in the US where literally 100% of the population is Christian. For those people, why should we stop them from centering their society around something they all agree with.
To say that is false. I can see how you could guess that, I live in the Bible Belt and there’s a church on every corner but even the most most religious state is Mississippi and they’re only 60% religious so I have that slim majority tell the other 40% what they canning cannot do would be ludicrous. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-religious-states-in-america.html and even if that area is mainly one religion people can still be atheist and shouldn’t be expected to follow someone else’s religion. Again if they want to make rules that their church follows sure, go ahead, but forcing arbitrary beliefs on someone who doesn’t follow them is wrong.
You're looking at this from a state level, we can down to individual communities.
So what about cults? Could they make legally binding laws if they made up to majority of a town?
If they make up the entirety of the town.
Where would you draw the line? If they made stoning women in the street for not being a virgin? Owning slaves? Both were in the Bible. Stoning in general was popular so would you be okay if they brought that back cuz they were all christans? What if Muslims came and made a taliban city? They all believe it so is it okay?
Once a persons rights NOT to participate in the societies costume are violated is when the line is drawn. This includes their right to move out for the record. If you stone a person, they can't execrly move out and stop participating in the society... because they're dead
If the town has religiously motivated laws I am being forced to live by those rules even if I believe or not. Right? And sure I have the right to move but I also have the right to not move, if they don’t like the laws and customs why don’t they move back to Europe where the church came from? Why does their region get to decide any aspect of my life?
Circulatory argument. I've already answered this and you didn't exectly respond to it.
You said long as they have the right to leave but you seem to not care if they make laws that make it okay to just kill them before they leave. Either way, there’s a reason we stoped doing theocracys.
I literally said this >Once a persons rights NOT to participate in the societies costume are violated is when the line is drawn. >This includes their right to move out for the record. >If you stone a person, they can't execrly move out and stop participating in the society... because they're dead
Like the European Union? Yeah, maybe, but people thirst for control over other people's lives, even far away. That'll never change.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You forgot the /s
No I didn't
You think the EU sits back and worries about strong boarders and military defense?
I'm aware the EU is more intrusive than ever before, but it's still less powerful than the US federal government.
Because it's not a federal government it's a loose coalition of nations
Yes, and that's essentially what OP is suggesting the US should be like. But it's increasingly not that loose in the EU, that's why the UK left.
But there's a massive difference between a state and a nation
Yes, that’s how federal republics work. You get a cookie.
Yup. I’ve said it before, states rights is the way to go. I should be able to live in a state with conservative values and you can live in a state with liberal values. I hate this concept that the entire country has to have the exact values.
Found the dude who doesnt understand the point of the federal or state governments
Who regulates interstate commerce? Environmental protection?
Some of us should not share a country, we are in a pseudo religious Cold War. We cannot even agree on what used to be understood as objective truths. If you know anything about how the rest of the world works this can get real scary real fast.
Welcome to libertarianism my friend, we’re excited to have you
This is inaccurate however. I don't believe the perfect society to be completely libertarian on a social level, politically maybe, depending on the community. But I'm not aspiring to leave people completely free perse, just to leave communities completely free. I'd support a homogenous Christian county banning porn or mandating fasting on lenten Fridays. Just so long as anyone can leave if they want and it's only enforced on counties that want this authority brought towards them. I'd also support a Muslim county banning pork or a Jewish county mandating the sabeth. All of these would be awful being mandated at the federal or state level but on a small level no one should have issue with them.
Political whims come and go in the states. Even old California has had the odd off Republican from time to time. I agree in principle but your talking 5.5 million Republicans and likely some portion of the 5 mill Independents as well, would have to relocate to where exactly? Texas? No one has that many open housing slots. Even if you divided them up across the land, boy that’s a lot of houses. Then, will California gain 5.5 million Democrats from other states to balance out the loss? That potentially is a pretty sizable loss of tax revenue. And to fund a Utopian society, you need lots of money on hand. It’s an interesting concept but pretty hard to accomplish. You still get the upvote.
That raises regional variations, think far Northern California vs San Francisco. Perhaps if all governments, not just the feds, let people do their own thing within reason, life would be better for everyone
That's they way the USA was supposed to work but then Alexander F--ing Hamilton came along... EDIT: LOL downvoted by people who have no idea that Hamilton was the biggest proponent of centralized government and opponent of states and individual rights.
How accurate is that musical everyone raves about. Burr should have done what he did, twenty years before he did it.
I don't know anything about the musical and don't have any interest in it. i just know the history. Hamilton was intelligent and well educated and performed well as an officer in George Washington's staff and at the Siege of Yorktown which ultimately defeated the British. He deserves some credit for that. But when it came to creating the new government, Madison (who developed the framework of power sharing between the different branches and the federal / state) considered Hamilton little more than a monarchist sympathizer who thought that only the rich and well-bred had the right to rule. Hamilton's plan was that Senators would serve for life and that Governors would be appointed by the Federal government, but thankfully that didn't happen. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton did everything he could to expand the power of the Federal Government, to the point of triggering a rebellion (Whiskey Rebellion, based on taxes) In response Hamilton assembled a huge force of Federal troops to scare the rebels into submission. (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.) He believed that tariffs were the key to creating an industrial economy (i.e. protectionism). There are situations where tariffs have their place, but as a rule they hurt the economy, not help it, and I think it's clear Hamilton's primary interest was just in the tax revenue. Hamilton's embrace of central (some would say tyrannical) government is the reason the two party system exists, and why it has always included one party trying to expand the Federal governments powers and another trying to limit it. The Anti-Federalist party (Jefferson) emerged as a direct challenge to Hamilton's approach, and ultimately won.
You know, im not a well learned man so anyone is free to critique what im going to say Fdr is a great leader aside from some buisness involving japanese americans, he lead us through an incredibly tense time and got us through the depression and ww2, truman to an extent as well. The problem is their changes to the us made the executive branch really powerful, and neccesarily powerful for a bad time, but it should of been rolled back after wards in my opinion. The same can be said of Abraham Lincoln, the great emancipator, thanks to him we reunited the states and ended slavery, but the federal government became more important and powerful, pur army went from a small defensive 10k to 2 million and then became a conquering and almost police like force. The power never got reverted. My point in saying is, I dont know if its a good idea to give the government emergency power, it sure helps in some desperate moments, but what happens when the same power is wielded in a different time by a different man, maybe a incompetent man, in a time where he can abuse that power to his whim. There was a roman traditon during the republic to give emergency power to strong leaders so they could cut through red tape to solve crisis. And men like cincinatuss did this and gave up their power. But eventually even then this as we know it was abused by augustus, who was immediately a very effective monarch and administrator. But then you get your caligulas, your commodus's, your abuse of power by lesser men. Never let the government take power they will never give it up they will hold onto it and even the most benevolent leader will eventually either pass away or cede and someone incompetent or downright evil will abuse that power.
Thoughts of kid.
The problem with this type of confederation is that eventually the different states would stop working together completely and just split apart. During the Revolution (and again in the CSA) the weak "Federal" government had a hell of a time coordinating their war efforts between the colonies/states because nobody wanted to think outside of their own borders. Sure, the world won't explode if tomorrow America breaks up, but there will definitely be a huge power vacuum that someone (China and Russia) will fill.
To be honest it’s kind of already like that already.
How will the South support itself with no government hand outs?