If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.
And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security. Is
And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security
That's only true of defense, which unsurprisingly the founding fathers thought of when granting the federal government the power to maintain a standing army. Both healthcare and social security could easily be implemented at lower levels of government. In fact, many other countries have already done this (one example is Canada, where each province has its own hea
But what you ask is exactly one critical role of the federal government: regulating interstate commerce. I would imagine in a case where more and more services are being pushed down to the state level, legal clauses would be built in to protect earned benefits and that law would be upheld by the federal government. There's no reason the implementation of the program itself has to rest at the federal level. They just need to step in to make sure everyone plays nice. And frankly, it's not that all uncommon in decentralized governments. Take a look at Canada. Each province ("state") has its own healthcare law. However, their federal government has a set of guidelines and stipulations that each program must meet. They don't run things at the federal level, they merely moderate.
Well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Too bad government isn't voluntary, or t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.
If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?
The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.
If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight.
Re: (Score:2)
And that works not at all for the three things our federal government spends >75% of its budget on: defense, health care, and social security. Is
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true of defense, which unsurprisingly the founding fathers thought of when granting the federal government the power to maintain a standing army. Both healthcare and social security could easily be implemented at lower levels of government. In fact, many other countries have already done this (one example is Canada, where each province has its own hea
Re: (Score:2)
And who would enforce that law, if the state said "go take a jump, we're keeping it"?
Re:Easy enough (Score:2)
lol, they can do that even if you're living in the state, and several are threatening to do just that: http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/27/state-pensions-well-cut-benefits/ [cincinnati.com]
But what you ask is exactly one critical role of the federal government: regulating interstate commerce. I would imagine in a case where more and more services are being pushed down to the state level, legal clauses would be built in to protect earned benefits and that law would be upheld by the federal government. There's no reason the implementation of the program itself has to rest at the federal level. They just need to step in to make sure everyone plays nice. And frankly, it's not that all uncommon in decentralized governments. Take a look at Canada. Each province ("state") has its own healthcare law. However, their federal government has a set of guidelines and stipulations that each program must meet. They don't run things at the federal level, they merely moderate.