Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Obamacult]

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.

Tell me how you think California would work without federal aid?
Or right, it would be a completely bankrupt ruin of a state. No doubt other states would suffer similarly.

Also, the constitution guarantees that the federal government exists. That is un-amendable without voiding the entire constitution.

(on a side note, railways are privately owned)

Amtrak is not privately owned and it is the single rail service that is most wasteful, inefficient and corrupt. More importantly, despite losing money hand over fist for decades -- it is very difficult, if not impossible, to free up these wasted resources for more productive uses in society thanks to government.

If California went bankrupt, then the debt would be restructured or forgiven. However, those responsible for running up the debt (the politicians, bureaucrats, their cronies in the private sector and the creditors) would be fauqed.

And yes, the Constitution would remain as it is under the framework that I have outlined. Essentially no change is necessary, just that the federal government surrender its wasteful, inefficient and corrupt management and regulation of many sectors of the economy to the states or the individual citizen, including but not limited to health care, retirement, education, housing, transportation, etc.

[Obamacult]

Tyranny of the majority. The 51% vote to plunder the 10% or the 25% or the 49% -- doesn't matter -- it always ends bad. That is why there is virtually no pure democracy on the planet.

I don't know is there any society stupid enough to be governed by mob rule?

Nobody said republican democracy was perfect, but what alternatives are there? Unless you can think of a better system, it is pointless to criticize democracy.

Republican democracy is not pure democracy.

If you go back and read more carefully, you will see that I only oppose (as did Jefferson) pure democracy.

In sum, I think we are largely in agreement on this point.

[Obamacult]

Indeed, this fallacious, conceited and despotic sentiment is what drives liberalism/progressives today.

Ahahaaha... Oh, you're serious? Let me laugh harder. AHAHAHAHAH

No, seriously. You're just begging to have people tell you you're stupid. Liberalism isn't about majority rule.

Yes liberalism (not in the classical sense) is all about tyranny of the majority.

Hence, you get 51% of the vote, you can pretty much screw the rest of the citizenry by plundering their fair gotten wealth to fund government programs that actually increase poverty, food stamps, welfare rolls, wage stagnation, longer term unemployment, college costs, energy costs, etc.

[Condunum]

Ahahaaha... Oh, you're serious? Let me laugh harder. AHAHAHAHAH

No, seriously. You're just begging to have people tell you you're stupid. Liberalism isn't about majority rule.

Yes liberalism (not in the classical sense) is all about tyranny of the majority.

Hence, you get 51% of the vote, you can pretty much screw the rest of the citizenry by plundering their fair gotten wealth to fund government programs that actually increase poverty, food stamps, welfare rolls, wage stagnation, longer term unemployment, college costs, energy costs, etc.

Prove it. Prove to me you know more about liberalism than the very people who are liberals that tell you you're talking out of your ass.

[Grenartia]

Congratulations. You've offically lost any and all possible credibility. I, for one, fail to see how the robber barons, the racial bigotry, segregation, and other forms of inequality that practically defined that period are 'managing fine'.

Learn your history -- not what you have been programmed to believe by Marxists in academia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

http://www.academia.org/bankrupt-myth-of-the-robber-barons/

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/seven_myths_about_the_great_philanthropists

http://mises.org/daily/2317

At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

You assume that I've been 'programmed by Marxists in academia'. This is a fallacious assumption on your part.

What you posted may address the bit about the robber barons, but it still doesn't address my other points (also, don't expect me to watch a youtube video, my computer doesn't handle them well).

Also, whenever you get the time, I'd appreciate a response to my other post.

[Stanisburg]

So the proposal is to turn the US into the EU (common currency and central bank, open borders, no centralized regulatory system)?

What could go wrong?

(Hint--the South is Greece)

[Herador]

So the proposal is to turn the US into the EU (common currency and central bank, open borders, no centralized regulatory system)?

What could go wrong?

(Hint--the South is Greece)

I'm not sure he's thought it through that far.

[Obamacult]

So the proposal is to turn the US into the EU (common currency and central bank, open borders, no centralized regulatory system)?

What could go wrong?

(Hint--the South is Greece)

Bullshit. Indeed, Greece's economy would have collapsed with or without membership in the EU. And the consequences to Europe would have been the same whether the EU existed or not.

Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that individual states can be expected to go bankrupt, hence, in contrast to the debacle in Europe, the US government could more easily step in and address this financial collapse and restructure the offending state's government and debt.

See previous posts.

This is preferable to a central government collapsing. Moreover, by surrendering many economic responsibilities to the states or individual citizens -- the federal government will become far less vulnerable to economic collapse associated with unsustainable entitlement spending that today represents over $100,000,000,000,000 in unfunded debt.

In addition, a federal government devoted primarily to protecting life, liberty and private property will be far less subject to corruption and influence peddling than the present government that has its corrupt fingers in virtually every industry.

This distraction undermines the true and beneficial role of a central government.

In sum, we have states that can manage many of the economic and social issues that the federal government now manages to the detriment and distraction of more critical responsibiilties of a federal government, namely those outlined above -- preserving and promoting life, liberty and private property.

[Myrensis]

The United States government is broke, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful. Is it time to downsize this unyeilding, "too big to fail" behemoth that is as unresponsive as it is detached from Main Street?

I'd have been curious to see your political positions during the Bush Administration.

I've noticed a trend among "small government" and "states rights" so-called conservatives. They're only worried about small government and states rights when they're not in charge of the 'Big Government', which is perfectly okay when they are, and anyone who suggests otherwise is practically a traitor.

[Pope Joan]

The problem with shrinking the government is that I want to keep the parts that help tame the beastly corporations, who would eat us alive otherwise.

I wish government and business were both tamer and meeker. But who care what I wish?

[Shnercropolis]

Tell me how you think California would work without federal aid?
Or right, it would be a completely bankrupt ruin of a state. No doubt other states would suffer similarly.

Also, the constitution guarantees that the federal government exists. That is un-amendable without voiding the entire constitution.

(on a side note, railways are privately owned)

And yes, the Constitution would remain as it is under the framework that I have outlined. Essentially no change is necessary, just that the federal government surrender its wasteful, inefficient and corrupt management and regulation of many sectors of the economy to the states or the individual citizen, including but not limited to health care, retirement, education, housing, transportation, etc.

No, the constitution would not remain the same. It would be fundamentally changed. You'd need dozens of amendments.

[Neo Art]

The United States government is broke, inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful. Is it time to downsize this unyeilding, "too big to fail" behemoth that is as unresponsive as it is detached from Main Street?

I'd have been curious to see your political positions during the Bush Administration.

I've noticed a trend among "small government" and "states rights" so-called conservatives. They're only worried about small government and states rights when they're not in charge of the 'Big Government', which is perfectly okay when they are, and anyone who suggests otherwise is practically a traitor.

you only noticed this now? Silly. Of course, when called on it, they'll retreat to the "bush was no conservative" mantra. Didn't change the fact that they supported him in massive numbers in 2004.

[Obamacult]

I'd have been curious to see your political positions during the Bush Administration.

I've noticed a trend among "small government" and "states rights" so-called conservatives. They're only worried about small government and states rights when they're not in charge of the 'Big Government', which is perfectly okay when they are, and anyone who suggests otherwise is practically a traitor.

you only noticed this now? Silly. Of course, when called on it, they'll retreat to the "bush was no conservative" mantra. Didn't change the fact that they supported him in massive numbers in 2004.

The Tea Party and a resurgence of libertarianism emerged in opposition to Bush's bailout of Wall Street.

Hence, Tea Party supporters and libertarians in particular are consistent in their opposition to government -- see Ron Paul. In contrast, the hypocrisy and contradictions within the progressive movement is palpable.

Indeed, the democrat party is the party of Wall Street, virtually all of them voted to plunder Main Street to bail out Wall Street, hence it is not surprising that banks made more money in two years under the triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid than in the previous eight years under Bush.

Gitmo, drones, GM bailout, Afghan surge, Fast and Furious, $6 trillion in added debt, decade high poverty levels, food stamps, Solyndra, welfare rolls at decade high levels, wage stagnation, energy and education costs at record high levels, etc. and still those on the Left sing the praises of a President whose policies are only different from Bush's in that they are more destructive in size and scope.



You stand corrected.

[Trotskylvania]

Congratulations. You've offically lost any and all possible credibility. I, for one, fail to see how the robber barons, the racial bigotry, segregation, and other forms of inequality that practically defined that period are 'managing fine'.

Learn your history -- not what you have been programmed to believe by Marxists in academia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

http://www.academia.org/bankrupt-myth-of-the-robber-barons/

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/seven_myths_about_the_great_philanthropists

http://mises.org/daily/2317

At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

You should take your own advice to heart before your criticize others. Because you are by far the worst offender to academic integrity in this thread.

[Obamacult]

And yes, the Constitution would remain as it is under the framework that I have outlined. Essentially no change is necessary, just that the federal government surrender its wasteful, inefficient and corrupt management and regulation of many sectors of the economy to the states or the individual citizen, including but not limited to health care, retirement, education, housing, transportation, etc.

No, the constitution would not remain the same. It would be fundamentally changed. You'd need dozens of amendments.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states that the federal government should go broke micro-managing housing, education, retirement, health care, transportation (other than post roads), food inspections, energy, etc. when the individual states or private citizens can manage these responsibilities with far more efficiency.

Indeed, the Constitution would not need to be changed at all.

[Frisivisia]

No, the constitution would not remain the same. It would be fundamentally changed. You'd need dozens of amendments.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states that the federal government should go broke micro-managing housing, education, retirement, health care, transportation (other than post roads), food inspections, energy, etc. when the individual states or private citizens can manage these responsibilities with far more efficiency.

Indeed, the Constitution would not need to be changed at all.

There is nothing in the Constitution which mentions automobiles, therefore, they must be banned. For real.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

No, the constitution would not remain the same. It would be fundamentally changed. You'd need dozens of amendments.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states that the federal government should go broke micro-managing housing, education, retirement, health care, transportation (other than post roads), food inspections, energy, etc. when the individual states or private citizens can manage these responsibilities with far more efficiency.

Indeed, the Constitution would not need to be changed at all.

really, have you looked at half the states now, instead of 1 clusterfuck we would 50 clusterfucks

[Obamacult]

Learn your history -- not what you have been programmed to believe by Marxists in academia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

http://www.academia.org/bankrupt-myth-of-the-robber-barons/

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/seven_myths_about_the_great_philanthropists

http://mises.org/daily/2317

At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

You should take your own advice to heart before your criticize others. Because you are by far the worst offender to academic integrity in this thread.

If you challenge any of the economic history I have presented, then provide facts of your own. It would be appreciated and it would add knowledge to the subject matter.

However, your personal opinion, while appreciated, is not valid and reliable without facts, logic and empirical evidence.

[Obamacult]

The problem with shrinking the government is that I want to keep the parts that help tame the beastly corporations, who would eat us alive otherwise.

I wish government and business were both tamer and meeker. But who care what I wish?

Business is not tame because the corrupt elements of the private sector have formed a duopoly with government in a quid pro quo of preferential tax and regulatory policy for campaign contributions bribes.

And in anticipation of your next fallacious assertion:

No, campaign finance reform will not remove corruption from the system. Not when trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy is controlled by politicians. Hence, the only way to remove corruption and cronyism from government is to remove its power to redistribute wealth from Main Street to Wall Street or any other special interest group.

Without preferential tax and regulatory policies -- the corrupt and uncompetitive firms would die on the vine.

Then the federal government can better satisfy its role as an impartial arbiter and protector of life, liberty and private property within a intentionally decentralized, balanced, limited and transparent government.

[Trotskylvania]

You should take your own advice to heart before your criticize others. Because you are by far the worst offender to academic integrity in this thread.

If you challenge any of the economic history I have presented, then provide facts of your own. It would be appreciated and it would add knowledge to the subject matter.

However, your personal opinion, while appreciated, is not valid and reliable without facts, logic and empirical evidence.

Off the high horse, dear. We've done this little dance before. You talk a whole lot about logic, facts and empirical evidence, but you have not once in this thread acknowledged when you've been refuted, or you've been given facts, data or arguments that contradict yours.

I have no desire to engage with you, because you're a charlatan of the worst kind who hides behind pretense, while doing nothing but citing propaganda from people who have no academic legitimacy, like the von Mises charlatans, while ignoring the vast array of evidence that's been marshaled against you.

You should really stop, because it's not fooling anyone. Either you're aware of this, and you jut don't care, or you are seriously unaware of he irony of condemning your opponents as being brainwashed by Marxists while citing trash from Mises.org.

[Grenartia]

you only noticed this now? Silly. Of course, when called on it, they'll retreat to the "bush was no conservative" mantra. Didn't change the fact that they supported him in massive numbers in 2004.

The Tea Party and a resurgence of libertarianism emerged in opposition to Bush's bailout of Wall Street.

Hence, Tea Party supporters and libertarians in particular are consistent in their opposition to government -- see Ron Paul. In contrast, the hypocrisy and contradictions within the progressive movement is palpable.

Indeed, the democrat party is the party of Wall Street, virtually all of them voted to plunder Main Street to bail out Wall Street, hence it is not surprising that banks made more money in two years under the triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid than in the previous eight years under Bush.

Gitmo, drones, GM bailout, Afghan surge, Fast and Furious, $6 trillion in added debt, decade high poverty levels, food stamps, Solyndra, welfare rolls at decade high levels, wage stagnation, energy and education costs at record high levels, etc. and still those on the Left sing the praises of a President whose policies are only different from Bush's in that they are more destructive in size and scope.



You stand corrected.

Wait, what's so bad about welfare? Keeping the poor from starving and being out on the streets is a bad thing now? Shit. I should really be tossed out on the streets and denied anything but scraps I manage to dig out of a garbage dumpster, then.

[Obamacult]

Learn your history -- not what you have been programmed to believe by Marxists in academia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk

http://www.academia.org/bankrupt-myth-of-the-robber-barons/

http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/seven_myths_about_the_great_philanthropists

http://mises.org/daily/2317

At least show some shred of objectivity and independent thinking and read what I have offered before making sweeping ill-informed generalizations and insults.

You assume that I've been 'programmed by Marxists in academia'. This is a fallacious assumption on your part.

What you posted may address the bit about the robber barons, but it still doesn't address my other points (also, don't expect me to watch a youtube video, my computer doesn't handle them well).

Also, whenever you get the time, I'd appreciate a response to my other post.

Your ideological framework is built on a house of cards, namely your notion that we need to empower a coercive and bankrupt Mother of all Monopolies -- the federal government -- to oversee small short-lived monopolies that don't possess any guns or gavels within a single sector or industry of the economy.

This is absurd. More so because the most destructive and corrupt private sector industries are those that form a duopoly with government in a quid pro quo of preferential tax and regulatory policies for bribes. Indeed, it is common for bureaucrats and politicians to become captured by the very firms that they seek to regulate. Hence, it has become far easier and cheaper for firms and industries to fund lobbyists to bribe politicians than compete the old fashioned way by satisfying consumer preferences with valued products and services at a fair price.

Note the preponderance of politicians and bureaucrats who worked as lobbyists in the very industries that they formerly 'regulated'.

IN sum, there is a revolving door of Washington and the very industries that it is supposed to oversee. Namely, government has become a market for corruption since it controls trillions of dollars in wealth through tax and regulatory powers that are largely redistributed behind closed doors making convictions for corruption difficult if not impossible to prove and prosecute.

In contrast, within a truly free market, the instant that a monopoly in any industry fails to satisfy consumer preferences -- it will immediately suffer an irreparable and fatal loss of reputation, immediate competition, lost sales due to substitution goods, boycotts, etc.

In contrast, the most destructive, coercive, unresponsive and inefficient monopolies are those managed by government -- education, health care, retirement, transportation, etc.

Indeed, the two most likely causes of accidental death in the USA are auto accidents (on govt. roads) and prescription drug deaths (FDA approved drugs).

Not even heroin and cocaine combined kill more people then prescription drugs approved by the FDA.

So much for your trust in govt.

[Frisivisia]

The Tea Party and a resurgence of libertarianism emerged in opposition to Bush's bailout of Wall Street.

Hence, Tea Party supporters and libertarians in particular are consistent in their opposition to government -- see Ron Paul. In contrast, the hypocrisy and contradictions within the progressive movement is palpable.

Indeed, the democrat party is the party of Wall Street, virtually all of them voted to plunder Main Street to bail out Wall Street, hence it is not surprising that banks made more money in two years under the triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid than in the previous eight years under Bush.

Gitmo, drones, GM bailout, Afghan surge, Fast and Furious, $6 trillion in added debt, decade high poverty levels, food stamps, Solyndra, welfare rolls at decade high levels, wage stagnation, energy and education costs at record high levels, etc. and still those on the Left sing the praises of a President whose policies are only different from Bush's in that they are more destructive in size and scope.



You stand corrected.

Wait, what's so bad about welfare? Keeping the poor from starving and being out on the streets is a bad thing now? Shit. I should really be tossed out on the streets and denied anything but scraps I manage to dig out of a garbage dumpster, then.

Motivation. Start a business, scrimp and save breadcrumbs.

[Frisivisia]

You assume that I've been 'programmed by Marxists in academia'. This is a fallacious assumption on your part.

What you posted may address the bit about the robber barons, but it still doesn't address my other points (also, don't expect me to watch a youtube video, my computer doesn't handle them well).

Also, whenever you get the time, I'd appreciate a response to my other post.

Your ideological framework is built on a house of cards, namely your notion that we need to empower a coercive and bankrupt Mother of all Monopolies -- the federal government -- to oversee small short-lived monopolies with a single sector or industry of the economy.

This is absurd. More so because in the absence of preferential tax and regulatory policies bought and paid for by the same private sector firms that you fear is the primary source of a coercive and destructive monopoly.

In contrast, within a truly free market, the instant that a monopoly in any industry fails to satisfy consumer preferences -- it will immediately suffer an irreparable and fatal loss of reputation, immediate competition, lost sales due to substitution goods, boycotts, etc.

In contrast, the most destructive, coercive, unresponsive and inefficient monopolies are those managed by government -- education, health care, retirement, transportation, etc.

Indeed, the two most likely causes of accidental death in the USA are auto accidents (on govt. roads) and prescription drug deaths (FDA approved drugs).

Not even heroin and cocaine combined kill more people then prescription drugs approved by the FDA.

So much for your trust in govt.

Source, source, sourcedy source.

Oh, and we can break up the monopoly that is the federal government, as long as you're fine with the much more oppressive local warlord who moves in.

[Obamacult]

The Tea Party and a resurgence of libertarianism emerged in opposition to Bush's bailout of Wall Street.

Hence, Tea Party supporters and libertarians in particular are consistent in their opposition to government -- see Ron Paul. In contrast, the hypocrisy and contradictions within the progressive movement is palpable.

Indeed, the democrat party is the party of Wall Street, virtually all of them voted to plunder Main Street to bail out Wall Street, hence it is not surprising that banks made more money in two years under the triumvirate of Obama, Pelosi and Reid than in the previous eight years under Bush.

Gitmo, drones, GM bailout, Afghan surge, Fast and Furious, $6 trillion in added debt, decade high poverty levels, food stamps, Solyndra, welfare rolls at decade high levels, wage stagnation, energy and education costs at record high levels, etc. and still those on the Left sing the praises of a President whose policies are only different from Bush's in that they are more destructive in size and scope.



You stand corrected.

Wait, what's so bad about welfare? Keeping the poor from starving and being out on the streets is a bad thing now? Shit. I should really be tossed out on the streets and denied anything but scraps I manage to dig out of a garbage dumpster, then.

Welfare is a symptom of a failed society that offers no economic dynamism or opportunity.

The most effective social tool known to man is a private sector paycheck, not a welfare check.