I am watching politics unfold as usual and am very amused to watch as republicans truly embrace BIG government and centralized power and as Democrats and liberals begin to defend the ideas of preventing government from dictating the actions of citizens and preventing individual states to find their own way. For the Democrats this has come about mainly because of the gay marriage issue and the pot medical marijuana issue.

Major political shifts do not occur with any regular frequency but often happen during intense political turmoil-- and we without a doubt are in probably the biggest political shift ever in American history. Not just the WOT or Iraq but the infighting over the changing of Mores and definitions in and of Society and Civilization.
Globalization will force these changes to occur regardless of what we as the --currently-- strongest nation on earth want. Change will come and those that do not either lead the way or successfully adapt to the new structures will fall away and become historical footnotes.

I will hesitate before proclaiming that the dems and liberals are about to go Libertarian.


Questions for debate.

Why have faith at all in government centralized programs when they are so often susceptible to political interference and being sacrificed or manipulated for political gain that rarely takes the needs or best interests of the program or its beneficiaries to heart?
Is it really a good idea?

Why not state based programs independent of the central authority of Washington?
Instead of taxes going to Wash why not keep it local where you have a better chance of influencing how things are done and needs are met?

Isn't this the whole real problem with conservatives and much of the libertarian party? As soon as it is a program YOU like or a social behavior you DON"T like, then your "smaller gov't" stuff goes right out the window.

I am for goverment programs that work and that have oversite by elected officials, and are not based on religioius idealogy.

I am not against taxes, and understand they are neccesary to run a very large, very complicated society like ours.

I am against folks that SAY they want less goverment- for big business or themselves or thier particular religious ideology, but have no problem using goverment to restrict the rights of others, as long as they dont' interfere with above.

I'm not sure what makes you suggest that state (or county, or city) governments will be any less prone to corruption and outside influence than the federal government. I'd say that it's a good idea to keep a watchful eye on all levels of government. If anything, I feel much less threatened by the Feds than I do by my local officials, who have much more influence on my daily life.

I'm not sure if I have "faith" in any government program, but some functions of government are more appropriate on a federal level than on a local level, and vice versa. What these are can be debated, of course. What I don't understand is the automatic attitude that Federal government = bad but State government = good. (I exaggerate, of course.)

There is much to be said for keeping things at a local level when appropriate. Two of the "key values" of the Green Party of the United States reflect this:

Ten Key Values of the Green Party

Why have faith at all in government centralized programs when they are so often susceptible to political interference and being sacrificed or manipulated for political gain that rarely takes the needs or best interests of the program or its beneficiaries to heart?
Is it really a good idea?

I generally don't have faith in most gov't programs, esp. centralized ones. I tend to believe in 'smaller' government, especially at the federal levels: this leave me the option of moving out of a local government I don't like. I recognize that some programs are best administered by an elected government: many proposals to privatize things merely result in exchanging an elected bureacracy for an unelected one.

Why not state based programs independent of the central authority of Washington?
Instead of taxes going to Wash why not keep it local where you have a better chance of influencing how things are done and needs are met?

I agree with the idea of decentralized powers, especially decentralized power to the individual. While I'm not a Green, I agree with VS's values, and in fact agree very much with the ecological taxes proposed by teh GPUSA, though I disagree with their other, more Marxist taxes.

Why have faith at all in government centralized programs when they are so often susceptible to political interference and being sacrificed or manipulated for political gain that rarely takes the needs or best interests of the program or its beneficiaries to heart?
Is it really a good idea?

That's a good question, but I can't give you an answer as to why I have faith in them, because I don't. I am now, and always have been (well, except for my anarcho-capitalist phase) for minimal government, strictly limited to the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Why not state based programs independent of the central authority of Washington?
Instead of taxes going to Wash why not keep it local where you have a better chance of influencing how things are done and needs are met?

If there must be a program, I'm for doing it on as low a level of government as possible. Let nothiing be done federally that can be done by the states, nothing by the states that can be done by the counties, and nothing by the counties that can be done by the cities.



That's accurate for conservatives, but I'm not going to buy libertarians doing that without some examples. Not just casual libertarians either, since it's LP members you're talking about.

I believe I'm as consistently for individual liberty as practically possible. If I fall short of that standard, I certainly want to know about it.


Btw, though I agree that taxes are necessary, they go to run a government, not a society. That's important because blurring the distinction between the two is one of the verbal slight of hand tricks big government advocates love to use.

Victoria,

While I will agree with you that oversight is important at all levels of government, the theory (which I do think is at least generally accurate) is that oversight is easier at the local levels. Basically, you are closer to the activity, and also there's less room to hide. Why then isn't this the accepted model? I think its because its easy to make a case for federal programs having the biggest impact..ie, its easier to address some social issue once at the federal level than it is, say, 1,000 times at a local level. The problem I see with this line of thinking (and why I am in favor, generally, of smaller gov't)...is that it is also difficult, due to the lack of local oversight, to ensure effectiveness of these programs. Consider your local schools. If something is going on you don't like, you can go to the school board meeting and voice your displeasure. Your voice will likely be heard, even if yyour problem is not solved. Now imagine if schools were federalized. Where then would you go to voice your complaints, and what would be the liklihood that your voice would be heard? Further, because of this problem, the tendency for government to address special interests at the expense of the general population is greater...it simply doesn't affect enough of the majority strongly enough to generate action. At the local level, such policies would be under much closer scrutiny, and be less tolerated (the 'what can I do about it?' reflex wouldn't be as likely to kick in).

Isn't that the problem with the more Liberal approach. Everyone MUST submit to what is often desired by a few--and pay for it.
I am not against taxes as they are necessary. but the current one size fits none attempts are nothing but wasteful and open to abuse and fraud.
Doesn't this then just invite constant antagonism to the whole idea or program making it a lightening rod for interference. Politicians on one side actively trying to sever it and the other side all to often willing to shortchange it just enough to maintain their political position. The program will always suffer for it and trying to meet the needs of its beneficiaries is always then always unreliable causing lost faith for the program since it cannot be counted on.

While this is still a problem at the local level--witness the intelligent design conflicts on the local level--it is easier to deal with because you can find your local reps. then you can make them miserable daily. You have a much better chance of affecting the results AND even better getting involved. It is far more affordable to run locally than nationally.


As a bonus it weakens the power of Washington, since they are not as vital as they are now.

This also allows tailoring of programs to meet the needs of the local communities. It allows what is not necessary to the immediate community to be avoided and thus keep the overall costs down. The ability to create a program which fits your needs vs. the one size fits none approach. At the local level it is much easier to catch corruption and get your hands--legally of course --on those who did it.

But ALL organized succeful societies have govements that DO run society. For instance- our society is DEFINED by our ability to be super mobile over great distances compared to other western societies. This is due to massive spending by our federal goverment on our infrastructure. I support this 100%- it is a very important part of what makes our country great.

A great deal of our gov't programs would cause our society, and possibly even our nation, to fail if they were removed. If we ended soc security, medicaid and medicare tomorow (welfare is usually tagged as one of those nasty "goverment programs"- but the spending is so miniscule in the budget as to not be important to the debate ) - our nation very well might not survive it. Crowds of starving seniors, the diseased not being treated and the re-starting of third world type plagues.

Goverment programs may be the boogeyman to many libertarians, but they are what, unfortunately to some, make our SOCIETY run.

Now- I am in total agreement with individual liberty as much as possible without it going so far as to interfere with another individuals rights.

Now- a great deal many goverment programs make us MORE free, not less. For instance, programs like hope 6 that facilitates private banks to give loans to marginal prospective home buyers allows a great deal more poeple to own homes that could WITHOUT goverment help. This is one of the great differences between us and other western cultures is our home ownership- nowhere else in the world do we live in so much space! This is not a direct result of free market capitalism- but rather, from good old goverment subsidies!

The PRACTICAL application of goverment programs is it DOES direct society.

It is when govermenvt intrusion, such as with the gay marriage issue, individual drug use, the Schiavo case- is when goverment intrudes into private liberties, with religious overtones, that liberty is TRULY lost.

Christopher said-

While I would whole heartedly agree with you that overall, the GOP has abandoned smaller government/decentralised power for the moment, I can simultaneously reject your absurd assertion that the Democrats advocate smaller government/the legalisation of marijuana. Not one single Democrat leader has gone on record supporting the legalisation of marijuana. In fact, the only democratically elected U.S. political representative who has come out publically for legal pot is the former Republican Governor of New Mexico...Gary Johnson

CruisingRam said:


So? I repeat ...so? So what? Way cool 13 year old Suzie decides to pull down those panties and give it up to too hip 14 year old Johnny, and automatically, the rest of us are morally bound to house and feed and clothe this new hip hop brood. Heaven forbid Johnny wear his older brothers baggy hand-me-downs (which is how the fad started) when the rich evil taxpayers should be "hookin' a brutha up wif sum..."unfittin' designer house proper dungarees..." And don't be oppressin' mama! 50 cent be some dope baby birthin' sounds yaknowhutImsain'....G?

And how does the emotional reaction change if I change the names to Billy-Bob and Mary-Ellen...

I keep hoping Chis Rock's prefered performer warrants artistic interest rather than knee-jerk anti-white jokes! Nevertheless, I'll take cash biatch! Pay me yo!

Argonaut- you sidestepped the REALLY large goverment programs I mentioned however- the ones that really are part of our power and economy and, by extension, our security. Also, you sidestepped one of the real reasons we have social programs for the poor- national security and crime prevention. Desperate starving poeple make very unstable nieghbors. I have always surmised that this is the real reason no real move to truly cut off all aid to the poor by conservatives in this country has materialized- they are afraid what a few million starving poeple might do to thier gated communities!