Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Obamacult]

It is apparent that your inability to understand and perform basic mathematical calculations like the following is one of the causal functions for the numerous economic fallacies that you issue on a regular basis.

For example, your bullshit can't explain away your failure to correctly state the decimel value of 1/120,000,000.

I stated:

No, actually your personal opinion on this matter, while greatly appreciated, doesn't make sense.

Namely your vote in the last presidential election had the effect of 1/120,000,000 and not much else.

Your mathematically challenged illogical reply (which probably explains much of your fallacious posts regarding economics) :

Which means that your vote mattered. I'm not sure why you cannot understand why .0000001 is not 0.

1/120,000,000 is NOT 0.0000001 ?!! No respectable grammar school student would ever make this grievous mistake.

Indeed, the true value is 0.0000000083 repeating.

Moreover, your continual hiding, diversion and evading behind gross examples of minitiua, nuance and the semantic two-step is indicative of a house of cards ideological foundation that cannot be defended in a substantive manner.

For example, I stated that your vote in a presidential election is worthless and you stated (incorrectly) that it was worth 0.0000001

Indeed, in the fields of nanotechnology, precision machining, aerospace, medicine, etc. this value has practical meaning, but in a practical social science sense, 0.000000008333 is nothing.

Hence, your faith-based adherence to absolutes of no practical value in the realm of social science renders your arguments more than suspect -- they become bullshit evasions and denials.

More importantly, I have always maintained that my vote in a local or state election carries far more weight. For example, in my home state of Michigan approximately 3 million citizens voted in the governor's election. Hence, my weight is 1/3,000,000 which carries over 40 times the weight of a federal election for president.

Indeed, if we are talking math -- you stand corrected as usual.

If we are talking relative weight of votes for a chief executive at a federal and state election -- you stand corrected, yet again.

[Death Metal]

Except since your federal government votes only apply towards your state electoral votes, it's the same amount both ways, so you are, as you always have been, wrong.

[Death Metal]

Your assertion of factional violence is overstated. Note that your house of cards argument rests on minutia, namely the intellectually deficient citation of relatively insignificant data and statistics to support theory.

For example, more blacks are murdered in a single year primarily in democrat run urban hellholes, then died in the entire period from 1865 to 1933 from 'factional' violence.

Oh come on. This is such a fallacious statement it's... well, par for the course from you actually.

It's not the numbers that matter, it's the per capita rates that matter.

For example:
There are 200 people in City A. 100 of them are murdered in one year.
There are 2,000,000 people in City B. 1,000 of them are murdered in one year.

City B has more murders, but more people murdered per capita goes clearly to City A.

[Obamacult]

Except since your federal government votes only apply towards your state electoral votes, it's the same amount both ways, so you are, as you always have been, wrong.

Fallacious nonsense devoid of any critical thinking framework.

My votes in a state election are not shared or measured against other states.

You stand corrected.

[Conservative Idealism]

Yep, it's too large and must be replaced to better suit our needs. Government as a partner, not a ruler.

[Death Metal]

My votes in a state election are not shared or measured against other states.

Incorrect when it comes to senators or representatives which are in reality more important than the presidents anyway; completely irrelevant when it comes to presidents because you are only voting for your state's electoral count.

Seeing as you don't even understand how elections work, you can't call anything a fallacy.

[Nua Corda]

Yep, it's too large and must be replaced to better suit our needs. Government as a partner, not a ruler.

That's the political philosophy of an angsty teen. The fact is, people need rulers, because people are greedy, corrupt, violent and stupid. "GUBERNMENT, GIT OUT OF MY LIFES!" is effectively "MOOOOOM, GIT OUT OF MY ROOM!" on a national scale. Mom is in your room for a reason, and the government is in your life for much the same one.

[Libertarian California]

California (debt-ridden hellhole, on the verge of being annexed by Mexico)

California has a balanced budget.

So why the fuck does this matter?

Yeah, the budget is balanced. The state is still $15 billion in debt, and Governor Brown is going to quadruple that with his $65 billion railway.

[Obamacult]

Your assertion of factional violence is overstated. Note that your house of cards argument rests on minutia, namely the intellectually deficient citation of relatively insignificant data and statistics to support theory.

For example, more blacks are murdered in a single year primarily in democrat run urban hellholes, then died in the entire period from 1865 to 1933 from 'factional' violence.

Oh come on. This is such a fallacious statement it's... well, par for the course from you actually.

It's not the numbers that matter, it's the per capita rates that matter.

For example:
There are 200 people in City A. 100 of them are murdered in one year.
There are 2,000,000 people in City B. 1,000 of them are murdered in one year.

City B has more murders, but more people murdered per capita goes clearly to City A.

More fallacious nonsense.

Lets me do the math for you:

Approximately 7,000 blacks were murdered by blacks last year, the overwhelming majority in democratic run urban hell-holes. In 2012, blacks represented 12% of the 314 million population -- 37.7 million. Hence, the chance of a black citizen has of being murdered is 1 in 5285.


In contrast, the number of blacks lynched from 1882 to 1951 was 3,446 which is approximately 50 per year. Even using the lower 1880 black population number of 12% of 50,000,000 -- 6 million. 50 lynchings per year per 6 million blacks translates into a 1 in 120,000 chance of being lynched.

2012 black on black crime = 1/5285

'Factional' violence against blacks circa post-reconstruction = 1/120,000

Hence, your bullshit is exposed, yet again.

Unless you are using Mavopren 'math', in which case my math is wrong, I am a racist and citing a civil engineering professional organization is a credible source for more proving that more infrastructure spending is necessary.

Source:

[Obamacult]

My votes in a state election are not shared or measured against other states.

Incorrect when it comes to senators or representatives which are in reality more important than the presidents anyway; completely irrelevant when it comes to presidents because you are only voting for your state's electoral count.

Seeing as you don't even understand how elections work, you can't call anything a fallacy.

More fallacious bullshit -- my senators share power with 98 senators from other states.

You are losing credibility fast and digging yourself ever deeper.

[Obamacult]

Yep, it's too large and must be replaced to better suit our needs. Government as a partner, not a ruler.

That's the political philosophy of an angsty teen. The fact is, people need rulers, because people are greedy, corrupt, violent and stupid. "GUBERNMENT, GIT OUT OF MY LIFES!" is effectively "MOOOOOM, GIT OUT OF MY ROOM!" on a national scale. Mom is in your room for a reason, and the government is in your life for much the same one.

Strawman bullshit (have another drink on me fellas).

You complete misunderstood the argument I have offered.

Namely, that a system of government be formed that intentionally limits, balances, decentralizes and makes transparent the elements of political and military power in society.

Hence, a limited government is created as a deterrent to the emergence of absolutism. In addition, transferring greater ECONOMIC powers to the competing states insures that the US does not have a one-size fits all -- too big to fail centralized power in Washington.

In addition, transferring regulation, taxation and funding of most economic and social policies to the states insures that we have a vigorous and competitive social and economic laboratory from which citizens can pick and choose based on their own particular circumstances, needs and wants. Moreover, states would be forced to compete for capital and labor with 49 other states, thereby insuring that 1) citizens have choice and 2) competition punishes corruption, waste and inefficiency.

IN sum, how do you strawman the decentralization of a federal government that is over $16 trillion in debt and facing an even greater unfunded liability by replacing it with smaller more responsive state governments?

[Death Metal]

Approximately 7,000 blacks were murdered by blacks last year, the overwhelming majority in democratic run urban hell-holes. In 2012, blacks represented 12% of the 314 million population -- 37.7 million. Hence, the chance of a black citizen has of being murdered is 1 in 5285.


In contrast, the number of blacks lynched from 1882 to 1951 was 3,446 which is approximately 50 per year. Even using the lower 1880 black population number of 12% of 50,000,000 -- 6 million. 50 lynchings per year per 6 million blacks translates into a 1 in 120,000 chance of being lynched.

Intentionally misleading as not only do you fudge the numbers (adding an entire 20 years to the equation) but also completely ignore that you're equating violence across an entire country with violence that was by and far in one region of the US, which also happened to be a region with low population density overall.

my senators share power with 98 senators from other states.

Irrelevant.

[Obamacult]

Approximately 7,000 blacks were murdered by blacks last year, the overwhelming majority in democratic run urban hell-holes. In 2012, blacks represented 12% of the 314 million population -- 37.7 million. Hence, the chance of a black citizen has of being murdered is 1 in 5285.


In contrast, the number of blacks lynched from 1882 to 1951 was 3,446 which is approximately 50 per year. Even using the lower 1880 black population number of 12% of 50,000,000 -- 6 million. 50 lynchings per year per 6 million blacks translates into a 1 in 120,000 chance of being lynched.

Intentionally misleading as not only do you fudge the numbers (adding an entire 20 years to the equation) but also completely ignore that you're equating violence across an entire country with violence that was by and far in one region of the US, which also happened to be a region with low population density overall.

my senators share power with 98 senators from other states.

Irrelevant.

Your complete inability to engage in any kind of substantive critical thinking is palpable, hence I will highlight your errors below.

The reason why statistics for 3400 lynchings is spread over 60 years (NOT 20 years) is because these killings occurred over that time and not twice this number in a single year that is the case today for black on black murders in democratic run urban hell holes, hence any self-respecting grammar school student understands that when calculating average deaths per year, the number of deaths (~3400) must be divided over the years they occurred (60+).

Indeed, you challenged my raw numbers by stating that I needed to calculate for per capita deaths. Hence, I calculated for per capita and you don't calculate per capita deaths over a 60+ year period and condense this rate to a one year figure -- when the deaths manifestly didn't occur in a single year, that would be intellectually dishonest or not worthy of a grammar school social science report.

I apparently will have to do the math for you again for clarity: 3446/60= 57.3. More importantly, I used the population figure for 1880's of 6 million blacks when calculating the chances of a black citizen being murdered, hence balancing out a rounding down from 57.3 to 50. For example, if I had used the higher population number for the present day, then the calculation would have resulted in a far lower chance of murder due to the same number of average deaths per year among a larger population sample.

With respect to your fallacious nonsense that the small number of lynchings occurred in a single geographic region. Two salient facts are obvious, most of the blacks lived in the south, hence most of the killings occurred in the south, duh. Hence, omitting northern states, the frequency of blacks being lynched would still be roughly the same 1 in 120,000. Similarly, most of the blacks that are murdered today occur in democratic run liberal urban hell holes -- hence, if I included just the population of blacks in these liberal 'paradises' in the calculations -- the frequency of blacks being murdered by other blacks is considerably higher than the 1/~5000 figure.

If you need help understanding these simple tenets, ask for clarification. This example is an illustration of how an untenable ideological stance is exposed by fact, logic and empirical evidence --

Otherwise, you, and your diversionary bullshit stand corrected, yet again.

[Obamacult]

Approximately 7,000 blacks were murdered by blacks last year, the overwhelming majority in democratic run urban hell-holes. In 2012, blacks represented 12% of the 314 million population -- 37.7 million. Hence, the chance of a black citizen has of being murdered is 1 in 5285.


In contrast, the number of blacks lynched from 1882 to 1951 was 3,446 which is approximately 50 per year. Even using the lower 1880 black population number of 12% of 50,000,000 -- 6 million. 50 lynchings per year per 6 million blacks translates into a 1 in 120,000 chance of being lynched.

Intentionally misleading as not only do you fudge the numbers (adding an entire 20 years to the equation) but also completely ignore that you're equating violence across an entire country with violence that was by and far in one region of the US, which also happened to be a region with low population density overall.

my senators share power with 98 senators from other states.

Irrelevant.

Bullshit, and yes, you can have another drink on me.

INdeed, this 'irrelevant' fallacious argument in the absence of any shred of substantive, logical and empirically supported evidence is part and parcel of the peanut gallery tactics to avoid confronting substantive and factual rebuts.

With respect to the FACT that my vote carries more weight in a state election (Michigan 1/3 million) versus (USA 1/120 million) is painfully obvious to any objective,rational and independent thinking citizen. Moreover, the fact that this weightier vote manifests its influence over a government that collects taxes from a smaller citizenry, within a smaller geographic area, among a more homogenous population and dispenses this taxpayer wealth to the very citizens that paid it says unequivocally that my vote and my taxes are far more likely to benefit me directly when administered within a state government framework than a national framework.

If you think this concept is 'irrelevant' or too difficult to comprehend then I am wasting my time with you. However, if any objective and independent thinking observers are viewing this thread, it is my hope that they can see the difference in my ideological stance and how I arrive at conclusions using objective and rational critical thinking skills compared to yours.

And remember gents, if your a liberal, you engage in bullshit arguments that I am forced to correct, and consume a shot every time I am forced to correct this nonsense, then insure that you have a designated driver.

[Hurdegaryp]

Are you guys having fun yet? This thing just keeps going on and on! As far as I can see, this is pretty much a very lengthy rant by the one and only Obamacult. I find it rather surprising that this thing has gone on for as long as it did. It's a bit scary, if you ask me.

[Obamacult]

Are you guys having fun yet? This thing just keeps going on and on! As far as I can see, this is pretty much a very lengthy rant by the one and only Obamacult. I find it rather surprising that this thing has gone on for as long as it did. It's a bit scary, if you ask me.

Your personal opinion, while appreciated, has no value, reliability, or validity regarding the topic at hand in the absence of a shred of substantive and objective fact, logic and empirical evidence.

Moreover, my assertions still stand despite these repeated inane retorts from the peanut gallery.

What is noteworthy is that I have largely met a bevy of leftwing adherents on this thread and the arguments I have made in the OP stand even more sturdy now than previously.

Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the majority of states with the highest per capita GDP (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, government that governs closest to the people, governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

Moreover, the singular 'argument' against my assertions is based on a house of cards of personal opinion and inane retorts devoid of any substantive and objective factual, logical and empirically supported arguments.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber promoting substantive ideas supported by reams of objective and pertinent citations including peer reviewed research, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

[Sociobiology]

Oh come on. This is such a fallacious statement it's... well, par for the course from you actually.

It's not the numbers that matter, it's the per capita rates that matter.

For example:
There are 200 people in City A. 100 of them are murdered in one year.
There are 2,000,000 people in City B. 1,000 of them are murdered in one year.

City B has more murders, but more people murdered per capita goes clearly to City A.

More fallacious nonsense.

Lets me do the math for you:

Approximately 7,000 blacks were murdered by blacks last year, the overwhelming majority in democratic run urban hell-holes. In 2012, blacks represented 12% of the 314 million population -- 37.7 million. Hence, the chance of a black citizen has of being murdered is 1 in 5285.


In contrast, the number of blacks lynched from 1882 to 1951 was 3,446 which is approximately 50 per year. Even using the lower 1880 black population number of 12% of 50,000,000 -- 6 million. 50 lynchings per year per 6 million blacks translates into a 1 in 120,000 chance of being lynched.

2012 black on black crime = 1/5285

'Factional' violence against blacks circa post-reconstruction = 1/120,000

first source for numbers, the original numbers you are plugging into the math.

second number lynched =/= number of murders, or even number of factional homicides. do you even know what a lynching is?

what happened to all the other types of homicide, which you ARE including in the present day numbers?

[Obamacult]

More fallacious nonsense.

Lets me do the math for you:

Approximately 7,000 blacks were murdered by blacks last year, the overwhelming majority in democratic run urban hell-holes. In 2012, blacks represented 12% of the 314 million population -- 37.7 million. Hence, the chance of a black citizen has of being murdered is 1 in 5285.


In contrast, the number of blacks lynched from 1882 to 1951 was 3,446 which is approximately 50 per year. Even using the lower 1880 black population number of 12% of 50,000,000 -- 6 million. 50 lynchings per year per 6 million blacks translates into a 1 in 120,000 chance of being lynched.

2012 black on black crime = 1/5285

'Factional' violence against blacks circa post-reconstruction = 1/120,000

first source for numbers, the original numbers you are plugging into the math.

second number lynched =/= number of murders, or even number of factional homicides. do you even know what a lynching is?

what happened to all the other types of homicide, which you ARE including in the present day numbers?

Just jump right in without any base understanding of the context ?!!?

Your sauce:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... state.html

Second, my argument was to refute the bullshit assertion that blacks in the USA were the victims of significant factional violence when the murders of blacks (lynching and otherwise) was significantly less than the murders against blacks in today's progressive/liberal managed urban hell holes.

Indeed, an average of 50 blacks were lynched per year, compared to 7000 blacks murdered by blacks today in largely urban centers.

do you even know what a lynching is?

And btw, you want a non-adversarial exchange -- cease with the bullshit smart ass comments when you first enter a thread.

And folks wonder why I preface responses with 'bullshit'.

If your civil with me, I will be civil with you.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Second, my argument was to refute the bullshit assertion that blacks in the USA were the victims of significant factional violence when the murders of blacks (lynching and otherwise) was significantly less than the murders against blacks in today's progressive/liberal managed urban hell holes.

Except that you've only taken lynchings from the first time period, and total murders from the second.

You either have to compare lynchings in both groups, or total murders in both groups. You can't pick and choose the evidence to suit your needs.
Arguably, if you compare lynchings in both groups, factional violence has decreased to almost zero in modern societies, with almost no lynchings-this as close as I can find to a source for modern lynchings.
Unfortunately, I can't find any sources about total black murders in both groups; nonetheless, your original claim is void as it is comparing apples and oranges.

[Frisivisia]

Are you guys having fun yet? This thing just keeps going on and on! As far as I can see, this is pretty much a very lengthy rant by the one and only Obamacult. I find it rather surprising that this thing has gone on for as long as it did. It's a bit scary, if you ask me.

Your personal opinion, while appreciated, has no value, reliability, or validity regarding the topic at hand in the absence of a shred of substantive and objective fact, logic and empirical evidence.

Moreover, my assertions still stand despite these repeated inane retorts from the peanut gallery.

What is noteworthy is that I have largely met a bevy of leftwing adherents on this thread and the arguments I have made in the OP stand even more sturdy now than previously.

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.


The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.


This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.


Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies


Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.


The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.


Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the majority of states with the highest per capita GDP (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)


How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, government that governs closest to the people, governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.


This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.



This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

Moreover, the singular 'argument' against my assertions is based on a house of cards of personal opinion and inane retorts devoid of any substantive and objective factual, logical and empirically supported arguments.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber promoting substantive ideas supported by reams of objective and pertinent citations including peer reviewed research, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!


This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.


Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

Bullshit.

[Obamacult]

Your personal opinion, while appreciated, has no value, reliability, or validity regarding the topic at hand in the absence of a shred of substantive and objective fact, logic and empirical evidence.

Moreover, my assertions still stand despite these repeated inane retorts from the peanut gallery.

What is noteworthy is that I have largely met a bevy of leftwing adherents on this thread and the arguments I have made in the OP stand even more sturdy now than previously.

Bullshit.

Your opinion, while appreciated, is not worth a hill of beans in the absence of any facts, logic or empirical evidence.

Moreover, when you post one of my quotes -- I would appreciate it if you didn't edit it or botch the quotation as you did in your typically inane polemic retort above.

You stand corrected.

[YellowApple]

As much as I agree with downsizing the national government and moving some functionality over to the states for efficiency's sake, a federal government is quite necessary. The United States of America is complicated as hell politically as it is. Removing the one stabilizing feature - an overarching national government - will make the complexity of coordinating the operations of 50 individual states (plus the various territories that aren't states yet) a hellish experience for everyone involved.

The smallest I can see the federal government getting without causing extreme turmoil would be something akin to the EU, with politically-sovereign states regulated by an overarching meta-government of sorts. However, this would be very reminiscent of the Articles of Confederation, with an overall government too weak to do anything about national crises (like Shay's Rebellion).

[Grenartia]

1. All that tells me is the debt. Not how the money was spent.

1. We have little to show for this expenditure. Indeed, the federal government has added over $6 trillion to the national debt for mostly cheap service industry jobs (over $1,000,000 borrowed per job created) and anemic European style economic growth moving forward.

The only thing that happens when government borrows recklessly is that societal resources get diverted to corrupt, inefficient, wasteful and economically unsustainable political uses rather than voluntary, efficient and economically sustainable uses selected by consumers in a competitve and peaceful marketplace.

2A. Source?

2A. You need a source for the fact that 120 million people voted in the last election, hence your vote in a national election is worth 1/120,000,000?

Or do you need a source that poorly run companies fail -- and that 99% of them eventually do ?

IN contrast, a behemoth central government can be managed inefficiently corruptly and wastefully in near perpetuity. While 50 state governments would operate within an environment of considerably more competition -- hence they would have to work more efficiently to attract 'customers' (tax-paying citizens)

2B. Said monopoly is owned by everybody. Thus, it represents everybody's interests.

2B.If you think your puny vote or lack of lobbyist in Washington buys you anything substantive you are not familiar with the mechanisms guiding Washington.

The primary beneficiaries of federal government largesse are those who represent large voting blocs or special interest groups and huge corporations that can bribe politicians with votes and bribes.

And most Americans are outside this loop, unless you include the biggest and most destructive boondoggle that are entitlements and those that will be paying this program with significantly higher taxes, lower growth, and decreased living standards over the previous generations -- are in college or haven't even been born yet.

3A. Using your logic, all that would do, however, is give the states that monopoly.

3A.NO dude, a monopoly is not represented by 50 disparate and competing states.

3B. No, not everybody is able to move away to a state they like better, besides, there are certain aspects of a state's culture, or climate, or physical environment that somebody may like and not be able to enjoy in another state. I live in the anti-LGBT hellhole of Tennessee, for instance. Sure, I'd move to a more LGBT-friendly state if I could. But I can't. Because I have NO MONEY to move halfway across the country. Neither do I desire to live in a colder state (hell, compared to my previous residence of Louisiana, TN is the fucking North Pole), nor one that has a constant geological Sword of Damocles hanging over it. I really fucking miss going to Mardi Gras, and fishing on the bayou, but I can't move back to Louisiana, either, namely due to, again my LACK OF MONEY, and the fact that its also very anti-LGBT (though admittedly less so than Tennessee).

3B. It is all relative, no government is perfect, government is a necessary evil in that we must find a way to create a system that intentionally limits, decentralizes, balances and makes transparent the elements of armed force and coercion in society to forestall the emergence of absolutism.

Hence, we all throw our political power and battleships in the pot at the beginning of the Republic and pass out what we think is necessary to establish order and trust among the central government, state government and civil society.

But it is far easier for you to move from state to state than it is to move from nation to nation.

Sorry, i don't have a utopian system for you --perhaps you should move to North Korea or Cuba.

4A. And if you were born there? Or dragged there by your parents?

4A. See above

4B. Now you're pulling shit out of your ass.

4B. What that central governments are the biggest monopoly ??!!

Hypocrisy, you even claimed yourself in this post that the federal government was a monopoly and you stated that it had to be a monopoly.

Of course they are, including the USA, whose tax and regulatory power have by far the greatest effect on the economy and dominate said economy by coercive means.

There is not a single company or industry except the central government that can dip its greedy inefficient and corrupt little fingers into every single one of your transactions and pay check and force you to buy their 'products' or you go to jail.

Your living in the Mother of all oppressive monopolies and it has nothing to do with capitalism.

Sadly, those on the Left are clueless to this dynamic and indeed support it while not understanding the mechanisms.

4C. You say statist like you don't support ANY government. And yet you seem to love state government so much. The problem, though, to address your point, is that private-sector monopolies DON'T represent everybody. There is always internal competition within a democratically elected government. Besides, a government, BY DEFINITION, must have a monopoly on power. If a government did not have any internal competition, then I would indeed agree with you that it is bad like private sector monopolies. But our government DOES, and is therefore, not comparable to corporate monopolies.

4C. Incredibly your advocating for the central government to assume the very thing that you fear ?!!!

Bullshit,there has never been a private sector monopoly that has amounted to anything more than a temporary nuisance. And indeed most of them became monopolies by offering valued goods and services at a very fair price -- hence they out performed their competitors and the consumer was the primary beneficiary.

Indeed, the primary anti-trust legislation came about was from whining outperformed competitors lobbying corrupt government officials to save them from more efficient better priced competition.

If your open minded, read this:

Anti-trust, Anti-truth

5. Taxes are payments for the services government provides. Things like roads, the post service, protection from hostile forces both inside and outside our borders, education, assistance for the needy, NASA, etc. These things are ALL necessities, and must be paid for. Regulation is a GOOD THING. Regulation is what allows you to pick up a pound of beef at your local grocery store, cook it, eat it, and not worry about whether or not you'll get sick from it. And source on the government's "participation in economic endeavors"?

5A. Bullshit, regulation generally is an illusion -- for example, food inspectors inspect around 1% of the food facilities in the nation. 5B. You want protection from malacious or negligent private sector actors -- take them to court and throw them in jail if they are found guilty.

In contrast, we have system of regulation that has been captured by the industries that are being regulated in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential or mild regulation for future jobs in the industry or bribes in the form of campaign contributions.

The system managed by the Federal government is manifestly corrupt on many levels. At least by decentralizing to the states, we can easily identify those governments that are less corrupted and better managed.

5C. Nobody is dying of food poisoning or bad roads in Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Singapore, etc.

6. Because, historically, the federal government has enforced a system that is best. The federal government forced ALL the states to abolish slavery. The federal government forced ALL the states to legalize interracial marriage. The federal government forced ALL the states to integrate and stop treating black people like second class citizens. And the federal government forced ALL the states to stop enforcing their sodomy laws.

Also, I never said anything about 'too much centralization'. Nice strawman, though.

6. This is a bullshit strawman.

I have always stated that the Federal government would continue to enforce the Bill of Rights. Indeed, nothing changes with the Constitution, the only difference is that the federal government no longer manages many social and economic programs that it have led to over $50-100 trillion in unfunded debt.

Indeed, what government at the federal level does do well is protect those civil and political rights that you mentioned, hence you should favor a system that removes the corrupting influence of economic policy from the central government that is so critical at focusing on civil and political rights.

7B. From your source:



Boohoo. Corporations are having to pay to comply with commonsense regulations that prevent workplace accidents, provide a decent standard of living for employees, and to not discriminate while hiring.

Regulations are in place to PREVENT people from fucking each other over. Anybody who complains about them can ONLY want to fuck other people over. They deserve no sympathy.

7B. Dude, you fail to understand that these regulations are not enforced. They are simply window dressing. The true mechanism behind regulations is done between lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats behind closed doors in Washington in a quid pro quo of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back'

The real 'regulations' occur in a peaceful and competitive free market by consumers picking winners and losers -- hence, if someone eats something from taco bell and they die -- then it is a pretty good guess that taco bell would be able to sell many burritos going forward. Moreover, if someone suffer an accident at a factory because a dangerous working conditions then the pay will have to increase to entice workers or the offending management official who was negligent or malicious is charge and brought to trial.

Hence, the courts can deal with corruption in the private industry the responsible manner in a courtroom in the light of day instead of in back room deals between lobbyists and politicians passing regulations that don't get enforced anyway.

Indeed, the biggest offending industries are those most heavily regulated -- pharma (#1 cause of accidental death) , health care (100,000 patients die from mistakes), transportation (#2 cause of accidental death), banking and finance (do I need to go into the number of regulations and not surprisingly the number of scandals involving the revolving door of lobbyist and politician?)

8. If there isn't that much money in the world then its impossible for somebody to owe that much.

8. Amen bro, your probably right -- but that is the unfunded debt that your beloved central government has promised to pay retirees and those needing health care.

You think that promise kept to you is going to be kept ??!!

Do you think the tens of thousands you pay into the system will be a positive return on your investment?!!

9. No it doesn't, as I said, because there are too many people who would be negatively affected and UNABLE to leave. Or do you also believe that all the people in New Orleans post-Katrina actually wanted to stay for the storm?

9. There is a role for the federal government in disaster relief. However, I think it can't achieve that role to maximum efficiency when it is being diverted and distracted by the myriad bullshit pork and cronyism that currently overwhelms the federal government that is best left to the individual states

11A. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn't stop slavery, didn't stop segregation in the South, and didn't stop the sodomy laws.

11A. Are you serious dude?

The only time sodomy laws get enforced is when some dude is trying to screw a duck in the town square. Nobody gives a rats ass if you want to screw someone -- just keep it in the privacy of your own home.

As for slavery -- we have a bill of rights and the federal government would move in since it still has all the guns and gavels so your argument is a strawman.

As for segregation, nobody is stopping you from living in a community of sodomites. If that is your wish, then more power to you. But don't force me to pay for your policy or surrender my personal freedoms to fund and support your social goals.

Remember, the federal government must protect life, liberty and private property -- not tell people what you must do with your private property -- think protect, not manage or force.

thats where the folks on the Left get confused, they think that the federal government role in protecting private property equates to managing it.

11B. I'd like a source for every single one of those claims.

11B. You need a source for this:

essentially the Federal government has become the most prolific thief in the history of the world. Plundering fair gotten societal wealth simply because a simple majority of a fraction of the registered voters that further represent a fraction of the population vote for politicians to pass laws that plunder private wealth for personal gain.

This is tyranny of the majority and it should not be practiced to steal the civil, political or economic rights of the individual so some politician can remain in power by buying votes with redistributive policies.

The sad joke is that these policies actually undermine the very living standards of the very people that they purport to assist -- case in point poverty is at decades high levels despite trillions in social spending.

11C. The federal government exerts more control over your personal life than any other entity, period.

11D. Moreover, your direct role in this process essentially represents 1/120,000,000 of the voting public.

And yes, poverty has increased despite $6 trillion in added debt to programs that you and your 1/120,000,000 vote has absolute zero impact on swaying.

11E. You have no economic rights when dealing with the federal government -- they tell you what, where, how much and when -- whether you like it or not.

In contrast, when I am not satisfied in a free market transaction -- I can tell the offending vendor to fuck off because I will never return. And most likely they will go bankrupt in short order if my experience was not an anomaly.

11F. With the federal government, you don't get to choose and generally when they are inefficient, this gives them an excuse for greater plunder and power.

12. Lets break down this list.

3 of those countries on the list are in the Middle East. Obviously their citizens are going to be filthy fucking rich, as they're almost literally swimming in one of the most expensive liquids on Earth.

Another, Brunei, a Southeast Asian country, ALSO makes most of its GDP through petroleum.

The US falls in at #8. Obviously, the federal government's doing a somewhat decent job if we're #8.

Then you have the 3 Scandinavian countries, countries with lots of regulations and taxes (how the fuck are they high on this list if regulations and taxes are bad things?).

Next we have Singapore, which makes most of its money because it has the 5th largest port in the world (and most of its small landmass is a fucking city).

Finally, we have Luxembourg, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Austria. All known for the financial industry. Essentially, they're all giant banks.

So some states (namely the coastal ones, and ones with access to various natural resources) will certainly be better off than others. But many other states will be shitholes, because they have next to nothing (I'm thinking namely AZ, KS, ND, SD, MT, ID, UT,etc.) And, as I keep saying to you, a lot of people in those states will be stuck there, because they can't afford to move away.

12A. Bullshit strawman and totally lacking in any shred of critical thinking rigor.

First, not all oil rich states are rich --many of the larger ones are poverty stricken -- or example, nigeria, libya, venezuala, mexico, russia, etc. Even iran and iraq were poor before they started fighting wars in 1980.

12B. Indeed, it is obvious that smaller oil rich states are richer.

12C. Bullshit #2, to assert that switzerland, ireland, netherlands, austria, etc are rich because of their financial industries is poor bullshit. All of these nations have diverse and productive industries and services besides finance.

12D. Bullshit #3 the scandanavian nations have significant economic freedoms relative to most other nations, moreover they are smaller hence the waste associated with managing social and economic programs is far less than the waste, corruption and inefficiency of managing the same programs in a huge nation like the USA.

Again, thank for supporting my argument that small and decentralized is better.

As for the city-state, you bring up a good point. Namely, might it be better still to bring management to smaller size than our traditional state governments ?

The bottom line is that your examples support the view that governments are more effective when they are closer and more intimate to the people.

I'm not going to typo this crap.

13. Read it and respond at your leisure -- but do me a favor and only respond to what you think is the least effective argument.

1. I would appreciate a source for the underlined.

2A. Well, considering that 2A. is addressed to the following (instead of the others, which were under 2B):

2A.Wrong, there is far less need to downsize large corporations because within a free society 99% ultimately fail due to competition.

I think that I want a source for 99% of large corporations failing.

2B. I am familiar with how shit works in Washington. However, unlike you, I don't see amputating America's arm to fix a broken hand is the solution to those problems.

3A. No, you fail to understand my point. Giving more authority to the states only moves said monopoly to the states. There is no competition for power at the state level. Thus, if enough people are unable to move away from a state (for whatever reasons), then said state has no incentive to change anything.

3B. Most of this portion of your post has nothing to do with the portion of mine it is supposed to be a response to. The only part that even attempted to respond to it suggests that I should move to the hellholes of North Korea and Cuba (which, should be fairly obvious that I would never want to move to those places, seems to indicate that you paid no attention to my post). Is it really too much to fucking demand that I be treated like a fucking human being in every state in the Union, as opposed to a grabastic piece of amphibian shit, like my current state's government seems to want to do? Why should I, as a citizen of the greatest country on the fucking planet, the only one to have ever landed a man on the fucking moon, have to put up with being treated like a plebian in a state which I cannot move away from, or in the state I wish to live in?

4A. And if you CAN'T move?

4B. No. That the 'left opposes freedom', or whatever the fuck it was you said.

4C. If you had read my post, you'd understand that I don't fear a government monopoly, but a corporate monopoly. In a government monopoly, I am still represented (even if my voice is a small fraction of the total). I have NO voice in a corporate monopoly.

5A. Source for the underlined, por favor.

5B. Of course, they could buy legal geniuses to keep them from hardly ever worrying about being sued, even if they blatantly violate the law.

5C. Yes, we as a nation should be imitating Denmark and Finland. After all, their citizens routinely rate among the happiest in the world.

6. How exactly is it a "bullshit strawman"? You do realize that tossing around that phrase alone does nothing to invalidate my argument, and is itself a logical fallacy, unless you explain how exactly it is fallacious.

I have never disputed that the Federal government would still enforce the Bill of Rights under your system. What I have disputed is things that AREN'T in the Bill of Rights, that should be enforced (i.e., things like racial/gender equality). It is the social and economic programs you are lamenting that have and continue to protect the civil/political rights you say the Federal government should be protecting.

7B. If that is true, then by all means, go after that, and condemn it. But, as I keep saying, cutting off your arm to fix your broken hand is a shitty solution.

However, we have tried having the market 'regulate itself'. And it did not work.

8. If I'm right, then why are you still seemingly claiming that the government owes that amount?

I know the 'promise that was made to me' (but was never actually made to me, and was made originally as a promise that could never be kept, so I feel no attachment to it) will be 'broken'. I've never claimed otherwise.

9. Again, go after those problems, instead of cutting off the arm to fix a broken hand. But you've still yet to address my real point about people who literally CANNOT move away (even within their own state).

11A. Actually, you're wrong. Lawrence v Texas. An example of a state government wrongly intruding on two people engaged in consensual sex within the privacy of one of their homes, that happened little more than a decade ago. Undoubtedly if the ruling hadn't made sodomy laws unconstitutional, it would still be happening in certain states even today.

11B. Yes. I want a source for every claim made in that quote.

11C. Really? Because I feel pretty fucking free. Nobody's standing over my fucking shoulders, I don't have to fill out any red tape forms to express myself, etc. I have experienced literally NO infringement on my personal life, other than the totally reasonable "go to school, don't break any laws" deal. You're drastically overexaggerating things.

11D. So? Even if the size of the country were a mere 100 people, my vote would still be essentially just as meaningless. Its not like its going to change the outcome at all.

11E. Source? I find it incredibly difficult, if not, impossible to believe that our economy is micromanaged to such an extent. Again, you seem to be drastically overexaggerating.

11F. Actually, you DO get to choose. Thats what this whole 'voting' thing is about. And if people are dissatisfied with how shit is being run, they can always elect different people the next time.

12A. How is it a strawman, again?

12B. So, basically, exactly what I said.

12C. Fine, I'll grant you that.

12D. I want HARD PROOF that a Scandinavian-type system is inherently impossible to implement in the US, purely because of the size of our population.

13. I responded to them all, because I feel that all except 12C. are equally ineffective.

[Jenrak]

Re: Externalities: The negative big one is the environment. I cannot realistically conceive of any infrastructure that can be implemented between states where you'd have one state willing to bear more costs than others, when on state levels you have this unwillingness.

The federal government adjudicates disputes between the individual states regarding cross-state pollution or any other externalities. I presume this is the same legal procedure that occurs today....snip

I'll just mash my comments into a single paragraph, since I'm too lazy to edit the quotes into reply blocks. My apologies on the lengthy time it took to reply - I use the search bar to find my stuff, and it kinda got buried under a bunch of RP stuff.

1. You're slowly moving away from your original argument. Adjudicating between cross-externalities is innately tied to government budget management, because then you have the Federal government defining how resources are to be allocated. None of this occurs in a vacuum. The same can be said about social and economic programs - part of the reason is micro developmental costs: if one state allocates a specific value to training or education, then another state has the ability signal a poach of that personnel without having to pay the cost.

2. This is double disconnect. First, again you're not considering the interwoven nature of the financial system. It is bad money, toxic assets, and vampire funds, yeah, but the alternative is a financial apocalypse. You cannot have an efficient state sector if the sector collapses entirely. "Too big to fail" was a literal policy problem, and no politician would last in office if he was found to have said 'no' to the banking bailout, especially since there was a push to support the dollar internationally at the behest of the Federal Government. No individual state government could have rallied such financial support because it couldn't effectively leverage that. This isn't about gradations of good or bad - it was about survival.

Second, there's no clear causality. For every state of small size with high GDP, you have equality small states with low GDP. You then argue that the richest per capita states are generally the smallest, but then go on to say that the problem with efficient or broken states is not size, but poor governance. I'm sorry, but what? Your causality for high GDP per capita is small state > [through close governance] > high performance, but then you go on to argue for low performing states that poor governance > low performance. Why don't small states that don't perform very well have close governance? For every Luxembourg you have a Suriname. You need to address that in your rationale, because you're ignoring it at this point.

3. Malaysia recovered the quickest during the 1997 crisis because its Federal state locked down capital flight. It was the only federal state to have locked down capital flight. This cannot be done internally because you need a federal government to act as a bearer of currency for transactions through banks, otherwise in a crisis you'd have capital flight.

4. Why should 50 individual state governments be rated (and thus some be less eligible for necessary credit) when 1 large federal government can borrow and provide credit? You immediately create instant have-have not scenarios where creating a business is easier in other states because of access to credit. Likewise, why are creditors and citizens benefitting from unsustainable programs a good talking point? Education and hospitalization are, through their nature, unsustainable, but critical points of infrastructure. Some states will be better equipped to handle those unsustainables than others, so why should someone in Arizona be better or worse educated than Massachusetts? You may say 'but there's already a divide in education', which is true, but to make that divide innate to the structure is not helping. You need to temper that inequality somehow, and the Federal government acts as balancer for that divide.

5. Again, how is this tempered by state government behaviour? You're making this implicit connection that the Federal government is ignoring the fictional opportunity cost of efficiency by devoting its resources solely to state governments.

6. Nope, nope. I'm sorry, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but your comment on credit in the free market is flat out wrong. Repeal of Glass-Stegall is a closer move to this 'free market', and it distorted credit rating to the point where it became window shopping. A free market for finance allocation has proven to be a bad thing by the crisis, and there's no amount of freedom, life, and liberty rhetoric that can fix this. This is an entirely different issue than federal or state policy discussion - this is a fundamental governmental issue, and bringing in the free market has been proven by the recent crises to be an invalid position to take.

7. Japan's Lost Years is economic shedding after the Nikkei burst. It's slowed growth is its sectoral shifts with China, its internal demographic issues, and the fact that it's reaching the end point of its convergency with the United States. The same scenario is happening in South Korea, and expected to happen in China, both of which don't have seemingly insurmountable debts. Debt for a sovereign doesn't affect anything other than their credit rating, and that scenario only occurs when they have no sufficient grounds to increase productive assets (as seen by Portugal) or through influence from the IMF (as seen by Malaysia).

8. You're being really condescending, dude. You're implying I haven't done my homework. I have, and I would like you to directly address the central causative problem of "why would small governance directly lead to efficient budgetary management?" We have examples of direct budgetary management - for example, Native American groups British Columbia, that work on very small levels but are rife with corruption and inefficiency. So why small governments. No rhetoric about life or liberty or anything about that. Give me a clear causative reason.

[Ainin]

Yes! America should be split. So that we Canadians can annex all your northern states! Mwahahahah!

But seriously, it would cause so much infighting among the states that it would lead to another civil war...