Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Ceannairceach]

Wouldn't it be better to transfer all responsibility to the towns, villages and cities!?

Where does the devolution end, exactly?

[Herador]

Wouldn't it be better to transfer all responsibility to the towns, villages and cities!?

Where does the devolution end, exactly?

Stop giving him idea's.

[Holy Paradise]

Good luck providing for national defense, then, OP.

[Ovisterra]

Wouldn't it be better to transfer all responsibility to the towns, villages and cities!?

Where does the devolution end, exactly?

Individuals.

Unless we want to give the cells free reign to leave.

[Mavorpen]

Wouldn't it be better to transfer all responsibility to the towns, villages and cities!?

Where does the devolution end, exactly?

Stop giving him idea's.

This. Please stoptentertaining the OP.

[Grenartia]

Good luck providing for national defense, then, OP.

Nah, OP says the Feds will still have "the guns and gavels". Still doesn't mean its a good idea, though.

[Obamacult]

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.

1. You don't need a massive central government to adjudicate disagreements between two or more states -- all you need is a judge, jury, courtroom, plaintiff, defendant and gavel. You certainly don't need a massive bankrupt federal system to manage health care, transportation, education, retirement, etc that is destroying the nation and corrupting govt. that controls massive amounts of wealth via coercive monopolistic tax and regulatory policy.

2. Put a ribbon on the bumper of your car that says " I Support corrupt, inefficient and greedy bankers and politicians" because that is essentially what you advocate when you enlist the revolving door of government and finance to manage and bail itself out. The Tea Party and Occupy Movement understand this destructive dynamic and the fallacy that it needs to be protected, even if most of America and you don't.

My assertion is that government that governs closest to the people governs best for obvious logical and empirically supported reasons outlined throughout the thread. Hence, it is far easier to identify corruption, inefficiency and waste by reducing the size and scope of government. Moreover, once identified it is far easier to correct it once it is identified. Moreover, in the event that the corruption, waste and inefficiency is not corrected -- only those citizens in that state are impacted. Lastly, they can move to an adjacent state and the corrupt politicians and their cronies are left with the clean-up.

3. The Constitution remains unchanged, until an amendment restores the gold standard, then the Federal government can manage both trade and the money supply. Indeed, it will now do so without having skin in the game and act as an impartial arbiter.

Moreover, there is no 'one size fits all' responsive to every financial crisis. Indeed, during the 1990's Sweden significantly reduced the size and scope of its bankrupt welfare state and recovered nicely. The bottom line is that small states like Sweden and Malaysia react best when power is in their hands and not the IMF or some large centralized bureaucracy.

4. Education and health care do NOT need to operate at a deficit year after year, hence there is an equilibrium of decent care and economic sustainability. However, if your goal is some kind of utopian 200 year life span -- then no free market system is going to achieve that today and certainly no government system. Nonetheless, health care costs in many small Western nations is significantly lower than the USA while providing similar outcomes approaching the quality of the USA system. More importantly, as the US government has thrown itself into the health care system in earnest since the 1960's -- we have seen costs skyrocket and outcomes flat-line relative to other nations. Moreover, states that are inefficient can CHANGE by adopting the example set by more successful states -- that is the beauty of Federalism (decentralization of power to the states) states compete for labor and capital by an ever increasing standard of better government.

5. It is the competition between the various states that keeps their governments honest, efficient and responsive. Indeed, it is far easier for a citizen to move to an adjacent state then to move to another nation.

In contrast, US government has an oppressive, unresponsive, corrupt and wasteful monopoly on power that is extremely difficult to dislodge and the consequences of failure will be disastrous compared to a bankruptcy and collapse of a single state government. Hence, inefficient government is met by less disastrous consequences and more choices for the disgruntled citizen. Also, as a citizen you can more easily pick and choose the system of governance that best suits your needs and wants.

6. Fallacy, the financial crisis was caused by over-regulation of the economy by government:

Feds set the interest rates at an artificially low rate that encouraged investment in interest rate sensitive enterprises (housing) that would not have been economically sustainable under a natural rate of interest. Hence, the bubble that was inspired and created by Washington overheated the economy and created an unsustainable housing bubble.

Washington has a demonstrably transparent goal of encouraging home ownership for social/political reasons. Hence, excessive and artificial incentives steered money into housing. Among the well-intentioned, but misguided incentives were the mortgage interest deduction, community reinvestment act, government insured loans, etc.



Indeed, it is impossible to blame the free market on the financial collapse when government sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae, FHA, VA, etc insured over 90% of the home loans.

I would recommend you read the following article to gain some breadth of knowledge on the subject froma high level management official who worked at Fannie Mae when it was not engaged in reckless politically motivated social engineering policies:

http://www.frumforum.com/author/edward_pinto/

But cast aside all of this evidence and the irrefutable argument is that bad actors in the financial sector at Fannie Mae, Wall Street, etc. knew they would get bailed out because Washington and Wall Street is a revolving door of destructive and corrupt cronyism.

Hence, Moral Hazard was in play that would not have been the case within a free market system.

7. Thats not true, Japan experienced a lost decade(S) because of stimulus spending that misallocated resources from sustainable and productive private sector uses to inefficient, corrupt and wasteful political uses. Primarily a building, rebuilding and further rebuilding of infrastructure on top of more than adequate infrastructure that led to diminishing benefits while increasing costs and diverting resources from more profitable and beneficial economic endeavors and industries that were lacking in capital, resources and labor.

hence, a behemoth monopolistic central government managed by politically self-interested bureacrats, politicians and their cronies in the private sector cannot begin to efficiently, honestly and responsibly allocate other people's wealth while not having to suffer the consequences of bad results better than private sector actors who actually earned the money they invest and suffer directly the consequences of bad decision making.

8. You think that giving corrupt Native American governing councils control over a larger population and more money would be better ?!!

Hence, your argument confirms mine. Namely that bad governance exists, hence it is better to confine it to smaller population sizes where (1) the consequences are minimized and (2) citizens can more easily vote with their feet to leave the corruption, waste and inefficiency to its own squalor.

Hence, corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and cronies will no longer have a captive audience to plunder at will --- they will be held to greater account than under a huge, unresponsive, corrupt, and largely opaque central government from which is it near impossible for the average citizen to disengage from.

[Obamacult]

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.

The highlighted segment will correct another recurring fallacious argument from the peanut gallery that keeps propping up.

Enjoy:

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 ten least corrupt states (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, Jefferson was RIGHT that 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.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, 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.

[Grave_n_idle]

Indeed, it is impossible to blame the free market on the financial collapse when government sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae, FHA, VA, etc insured over 90% of the home loans.

I think there's a bit of a typo. Ignoring that, though - I refuse to believe anyone is blissfully unaware that the 'housing bubble' is just part of the huge debt bubble incurred since the early 70's - and which can be blamed on nothing more than predatory lending and consumerism outstretching the means to repay.

You're trying to lay the blame on the government, when the real fault lies with every American, and the ridiculous consumerist culture we cherish. But I suppose you have to blame some externality for the sin you're not only a part of, but an active advocate for.

[Obamacult]

Indeed, it is impossible to blame the free market on the financial collapse when government sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae, FHA, VA, etc insured over 90% of the home loans.

I think there's a bit of a typo. Ignoring that, though - I refuse to believe anyone is blissfully unaware that the 'housing bubble' is just part of the huge debt bubble incurred since the early 70's - and which can be blamed on nothing more than predatory lending and consumerism outstretching the means to repay.

You're trying to lay the blame on the government, when the real fault lies with every American, and the ridiculous consumerist culture we cherish. But I suppose you have to blame some externality for the sin you're not only a part of, but an active advocate for.

I beg to differ, did you see this graph?



I blame government for laying the foundation that incentivised Americans to engage in reckless and unsustainable financial transactions:

1) the revolving door of Wall Street and Washington CEOs and bureaucrats insured that Wall Street managers could engage in reckless and greedy speculation knowing full well that any adverse consequences would be covered by politicians.

2) unqualified borrowers were incentivised to purchase homes with little or no money down thanks to GSE's like the FHA, Fannie Mae, VA, etc. empowered by CRA legislation and other government policies like the mortgage interest deduction, artificially low interest rates, minimal money down.

Indeed, these incentives were not in play for decades until the social engineering policies of Clinton and Bush emerged, motivated by the utopian goal to insure that more Americans owned homes.

In sum, don't blame lenders and borrowers for operating within a disjointed and artificially distorted economy created by government policies designed to achieve some utopian end or more likely simply policy designed to buy votes in a quid pro quo for preferential regulations and handouts.

[Grave_n_idle]

I beg to differ...

Knock yourself out.

But the housing bubble was just one manifestation of the well-documented debt-culture of the US.

[Obamacult]

I beg to differ...

Knock yourself out.

But the housing bubble was just one manifestation of the well-documented debt-culture of the US.

Again, a debt culture that was incentivised by government policies.

And why not?

Most of the greedy banks and the greedy borrowers got away without a scratch. The bankers got bailed out. Indeed, they made more money in the two years immediately following the crisis than they did the preceding eight years under Bush!

See this article from the extreme rightwing Tea Party front group ThinkProgress.org ( I know it is biased, but it was all I had).

Similarly, the negligent borrowers got away without risking a dime of their own money or very low down payments thanks to GSE's that backed these loans that wouldn't have seen the light of day in a truly free market.

Indeed, I waited out the housing bubble and began buying properties in 2009. The federal government even paid me $8000 to buy a home in 2009 that I didn't have to pay a dime down at closing thanks to a VA loan -- Zero money down, $8k tax credit, over $200 less per month in taxes thanks to the mortgage interest deduction and zero capital gains taxes when I sell after three years residence.

In sum, these kind of incentives create bubbles that ordinarily wouldn't have happened within a free market devoid of these artificial government created mis-incentives.

[Obamacult]

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...

The Civil War was caused by slavery. No such divisive issue existed today.

Indeed, the federal government that existed from 1866 to 1930 would exist today -- no change to the Constitution is necessary.

The federal government would still have the power to check any such shenanigans of the individual states.

[Shnercropolis]

Splitting up the union would do nothing good. The states would just ally together anyway(because individually the states are absolutely helpless), and form another union, this time shakier and less powerful.

Also, your complaint about "one-size-fits-all" deals from Washington: Most of the laws you are living under right now are state's laws. The federal government may have the final say, but most of the lawmaking comes from the states.

[National Socialists of America]

corrupt

You keep using that word.....

[Greed and Death]

How about we do what corporations often do when the debt gets too high.

Break up the federal government then reform another one with the same officials, laws, and Constitution.

What we would not have is the debt, that would be the old United state's debt. This is the new United states.

[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...

The Civil War was caused by slavery. No such divisive issue existed today.

Indeed, the federal government that existed from 1866 to 1930 would exist today -- no change to the Constitution is necessary.

The federal government would still have the power to check any such shenanigans of the individual states.

"No such divisive issue"
Divisive issue found!

[Greed and Death]

I beg to differ...

Knock yourself out.

But the housing bubble was just one manifestation of the well-documented debt-culture of the US.

yeah we also tell students to get as much education as possible never mind the debt.

[Obamacult]

Splitting up the union would do nothing good. The states would just ally together anyway(because individually the states are absolutely helpless), and form another union, this time shakier and less powerful.

Also, your complaint about "one-size-fits-all" deals from Washington: Most of the laws you are living under right now are state's laws. The federal government may have the final say, but most of the lawmaking comes from the states.

We wouldn't be 'splitting up' the union -- indeed, the Constitution wouldn't change one bit.

The only difference is that the federal government would no longer mismanage and bankrupt education, health care, retirement, transportation, railways, etc. that represent over $100 trillion in unfunded debt that will soon bankrupt the nation.

Hence, the states and society managed fine from 1865 to 1933 without the federal government sticking its inefficient, wasteful and corrupt nose into economic issues best managed at the state level or by the citizen.

[Obamacult]

corrupt

You keep using that word.....

because the government is still corrupt.

You don't believe that politicians act in their self-interest?

And that their self-interest is to get re-elected by buying votes and bribes in a quid pro quo for preferential tax and regulatory policy?

[Obamacult]

The Civil War was caused by slavery. No such divisive issue existed today.

Indeed, the federal government that existed from 1866 to 1930 would exist today -- no change to the Constitution is necessary.

The federal government would still have the power to check any such shenanigans of the individual states.

"No such divisive issue"
Divisive issue found!

note that this divisive issue has emerged despite a strong central government.

In contrast, if you want to live in a state that outlaws gun ownership among everyone except outlaws (who don't follow the law anyway) -- then you are free to do so.

Unfortunately a one size fits all solution from Washington may not be the best policy considering the diversity of such locales as a rural town in Montana and an urban cityscape in Washington DC. Within the framework of the 2nd amendment, each state must be able to tweak gun control laws to suit their specific circumstances.

[Ainin]

"No such divisive issue"
Divisive issue found!

note that this divisive issue has emerged despite a strong central government.

In contrast, if you want to live in a state that outlaws gun ownership among everyone except outlaws (who don't follow the law anyway) -- then you are free to do so.

Unfortunately a one size fits all solution from Washington may not be the best policy considering the diversity of such locales as a rural town in Montana and an urban cityscape in Washington DC. Within the framework of the 2nd amendment, each state must be able to tweak gun control laws to suit their specific circumstances.

Yes, because a murder in Washington, DC is different from a murder in Springfield, Montana?

[The Black Forrest]

Knock yourself out.

But the housing bubble was just one manifestation of the well-documented debt-culture of the US.

yeah we also tell students to get as much education as possible never mind the debt.

So? We should not educate them?

[Ensiferum]

The whole idea of a Republic is bad. Yes, we should break up the government. We should discard the Constitution, but not all of it's ideals. What we need is a pure, direct democracy.

[The Black Forrest]

The whole idea of a Republic is bad. Yes, we should break up the government. We should discard the Constitution, but not all of it's ideals. What we need is a pure, direct democracy.

Bad idea. Tyranny by the majority.