National government vs. State government

[Burtonea]

You need the national government for some things (like defense) but in most other things, I prefer state government.
State governments allow for the representatives to be closer to the people, allow people with different preferences to have more of their own way and less of crap compromises that please neither side, and there is more competition between governments for good services, low taxes... whatever the people's priorities are, since its easier to move across a country than to a new one.

[Burtonea]

In that in my opinion, State's rights has basically become a code word for individuals wanting to limit or restrict an other groups rights, but know they cannot get such action passed on the federal scale.

It goes both ways. Slavery was first outlawed at the state level (in the North, of course), and the national government imposed the Fugitive Slave laws.

[Revolutopia]

State governments allow for the representatives to be closer to the people, allow people with different preferences to have more of their own way and less of crap compromises that please neither side,

I would argue that crap compromises are still preferable to majority tyranny which is more likely to happen when only dealing with single Homogenous population.

As Texan Homosexuals should have make the decision to accept denial of their equal rights or having to move from their home just because there is more bible thumpers in the state then them.

Neither should Californian gun owners have make the decision to accept denial of their right to bare arms or having to move from their home just because there is more gun hating Democrats in the state then them.

In the national scale it is much harder to pass laws prohibiting these actions as their numerous other individuals representing these different demographics that will oppose any such actions.

Through I would argue that the Federal level should not have the right to make desicions on individual issues such as these also.

It goes both ways. Slavery was first outlawed at the state level (in the North, of course), and the national government imposed the Fugitive Slave laws.

I will admit there have been times where States have pushed for the right to create more liberity then the federal level, however recently I have found much lower instances of that then the other way.

Additionally, the fact that Southern States worked to forced the national imposition of the Fugitive Slave act helps further ring follow State's Rights rhetoric. How the Southern states were all about crying about their state's rights to have slavery and what not, yet once they had the chance to impose their views on those states opposing their view they jumped onto the federal bandwagon.

It is like how after Mass. Supreme Court allowed Homosexual Marriage Conservative States screamed that they had every right to constitionally ban homosexual marriage in their states because of state's rights. Yet, at the same time many of their Conservative Representives and Senators were thinking about passing an Const. Amendment banning Homosexual marriage thus denying Mass. and other the right to recognize these marriages.

In how that they were in control of two/three branches of government at the time.

[Wamitoria]

Strong national gov't.

[Liam is the BEST]

In turn this is just like the US Constitution

Antifederalsits vs Federalists

I would pick and national government which are federalists

[Set the Unbound]

Strong state governments, can more easily move to avoid bad state policy (vote with ones feet) and closer to the people. Not to mention a limited federal government will find colonialism and wars harder to go about.

^ This

[Voerdeland]

Strong local (municipal) government

[Soheran]

I think there is a strong democratic case for smaller-scale political units, but I think that most contemporary advocates of "states' rights" don't appreciate the kind of context that's necessary to make that work well. For one, you need real political sovereignty on the part of those units: you need a party system and a political consciousness that is centered around local/state issues rather than national ones. For another, you need enough of an independent economy such that you can engage in economic policy without coordination with other political entities. US states have difficulty with both of these requirements: our politics is centered around the national scene and our economy is pretty thoroughly national also.

To put this analysis into concrete terms, within the framework of US politics I am a strong supporter of federal power, but at the same time I wouldn't object to splitting the country into several smaller units.

[Augarundus]

Lol@government.

[Arilando]

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS BEST.

I mean seriously, humanity should be united instead of being divided into small entities, larger entities can allways do more.

[Conserative Morality]

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS BEST.

I mean seriously, humanity should be united instead of being divided into small entities, larger entities can allways do more.

International government would only work with an international culture.

[Arilando]

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS BEST.

I mean seriously, humanity should be united instead of being divided into small entities, larger entities can allways do more.

International government would only work with an international culture.

We are allready in the process of becoming an international culture because of globalization. Also having the same government will encourage people to have an international culture.

[Gilthador]

They are the same thing outside of the United States. As a secessionist, I think a strong state government is better. It's far closer to local federations than the US national government is.

[Farnhamia]

If there has to be one at all, make it a municipal or even neighborhood government.

What if I invade?

That's easy, we have one person stand in the road and go, "The Romans were a purely derivative culture, unoriginal, totally dependent on the Greeks." Then, while you're screaming at us in contradiction, the police arrest your army and take you away.

[Proletis]

What if I invade?

That's easy, we have one person stand in the road and go, "The Romans were a purely derivative culture, unoriginal, totally dependent on the Greeks." Then, while you're screaming at us in contradiction, the police arrest your army and take you away.

Why not just fire the MGs? I doubt their shields would be able to protect them against that.

[Proletis]

If there has to be one at all, make it a municipal or even neighborhood government.

What if I invade?

Municipal government doesn't preclude a strong unified military.

[Wamitoria]

What if I invade?

Municipal government doesn't preclude a strong unified military.

How would you call for reinforcements?

[Syritania]

Definitely local governments, preferably cities. City states with no federal government would be very cool. They could form defensive alliances of any kind against any kind of foreign threat and corruption would be more or less eliminated with localized free elections.

Centralized power, public or private, is more susceptible to corruption. The difference between publicly and privately regulated economy would then be that in case of a planned (publicly owned) economy, businessmen (politicians) would be elected.

[Proletis]

Municipal government doesn't preclude a strong unified military.

How would you call for reinforcements?

Same way you normally would in a national government. The military would be democratically controlled by a federation of municipalities.

[Jello Biafra]

I'm not represented any better at the state level than at the national level. Thanks to Philadelphians, we keep getting crap governors.

[Conserative Morality]

Municipal government doesn't preclude a strong unified military.

Cities cannot stand against full-sized countries.

[Wamitoria]

How would you call for reinforcements?

Same way you normally would in a national government. The military would be democratically controlled by a federation of municipalities.

There's no way it would work.

[Dixie Republic]

strong state government

[Conserative Morality]

That's easy, we have one person stand in the road and go, "The Romans were a purely derivative culture, unoriginal, totally dependent on the Greeks." Then, while you're screaming at us in contradiction, the police arrest your army and take you away.

Who are you going to get to stand in the road and shout that at me? That's a suicide mission!

[Hushab]

More government, not less. So long as it's not representative in the elections (no electoral congress!), a large government that isn't oppressive can do much more than any strong states can.