Dissolve the Federal Government

[thegamerslink]

The actual nuclear dilemma happened back in the'70's and '80's. The only Nuclear dilemma that is left to really exist now is the allowing of extremists to get it into their hands. If we can keep tabs on what we have and keep those like the Iranian government, and the little extremists blow up the world types we should be pretty much fine. Though the more that get them the more fearful things become......hense the need to do such things as topple regime's such as Sadam Hussein's to make a stand and put others on notice.....then to take a stand against countries such as Iran from getting them......what doesn't help is when people both citizens and those holding governmental offices such as senators...speakers of the house.....etc...that do everything they can to weaken that stand....that is what can cause a real nuclear or biological dillema because that is what will allow those extremists and peeon countries to be able to get their hands on the nukes and bio weapons and put the thought in their minds they could get away with using such things.....

Just think....had President Clinton and his office went after those that attempted to blow up the Trade Center the first couple times and put them on notice in such a way, what do you think the chances are they would have continued trying till they got it right? If we would have stomped on them the first time and crushed them they would have been either unable to or to afraid to........as for foreign relations...the main reason that so many countries are supposedly not happy with us is because we finally stood up and made them all go Oh Shit! for once.....they don't like it when we do something without asking all of their permition first....but let them see that you are standing firm for your beliefs and protection they will stop bitching after they get over the initial shock...look at France.....

[thegamerslink]

As for me thinking quickly or being so verbal, just haven't had anyone to talk to about this stuff for quite some time lol.....getting it all out at once is all......

The simple topic of illegal aliens is proof that state governments and officials are totally ill equipped and unable to handle themselves with this ridiculous sanctuary state BS.....the federal government in return isn't showing much better leadership as they aren't arresting those not following federal law. The sad truth is that the state of this politically correct be scared to offend anyone under any circumstances bend over backwards to give everyone everything they want is what has caused allot of the overwhelming problems we are facing today. If you see so much problem with the Federal Government then better take a real close look at the Democratic party since the 2000 election and what they have been up to in order to attempt to undermind the government so they can attempt to regain power since they knew they couldn't do it any other way......All governments are going to have problems....all businesses have problems both ethically and financially....it really comes down to the simple citizen/consumer....they hold all the power and just have no idea they have it or how to use it....the saying "One Man Can Make A Difference" is really no joke........

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

We've had nukes for 6 decades and it hasn't been a problem. Why do you think it will be a problem if we break up this monster of a corrupt federal government?

Well it just seems as though we'd be vulnerable to subservience through common sense.

[thegamerslink]

As I said earlier Scott...the only reason you have such a corrupt government is because those that put those people that are corrupt in office and keep them there. If they demanded they be charged, or investigated...or just refused to re-elect them, the problem would be solved for a large part and those that go into office in the future would know they couldn't get away with it and perhaps be less likely or slower to attempt it in the future?

[thegamerslink]

Nipping the topic in the bud so to speak.....If you are living in a Socialist, Communist, or Dictatorship type government and you find it to be corrupt, or you find that you aren't getting what you need in order to survive then you unite and replace the government in an attempt to better those things because you have no power otherwise to do anything about it. However, when you live in a democracy, and you find yourself looking upon a corrupt government or corrupt officials of a government. You are having trouble getting what you need to survive, the problem is not the government, and the answer is not to topple the government. The problem is actually in the citizens themselves as they are not doing what is their responsibility to supply those things to themselves they need in order to survive, they are not taking the time and responsibility to stand up and make those that are corrupt or are not doing the things they promised take notice. You are responsible for what the government does and it is your job, our job, each and every one of us, to do what is within our power to bring to notice to crimes being comitted by elected officials, by voting when it is time, and in the mean time demanding follow through with those things that those who were elected were elected for. Remember the Amnesty Bill....why didn't it pass??....could be that the congress and senate were flooded with overwhelming emails, letters, and phone calls voicing just how fiercely it was opposed by us the citizen.

[thegamerslink]

I just came up with an idea for a neat little experiment.....why don't we fence in or wall in Berkley California, maybe even release all the poorly treated Gitmo residents inside Berkley at the same time, close it off and leave them to govern themselves and see what happens? :-) Oh by all means making sure we keep the military outside so as not to interfere of course...probably the police too, don't think they think to highly of them either.....

[Rankenstein]

OK, where does the idea of secession end?

What happens when the counties say State government is a bloated monster, and decide to secede from the States? And then individual towns decide their town council is sufficient for their purposes?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

OK, where does the idea of secession end?

What happens when the counties say State government is a bloated monster, and decide to secede from the States? And then individual towns decide their town council is sufficient for their purposes?

Who says it needs to end? And it will end when the people feel that the government they have properly represents their interests.

Think about, say, the Soviet Union, and why so many republics broke away. Because their interests were not being served.

When it comes to cities and towns, I don't see the need and don't think many Americans would either.

[jdspc]

Rank usually is correct.........

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by jdspc

Rank usually is correct.........

If by "correct" you mean socialist leaning opponent of laissez faire government, yes.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

If by "correct" you mean socialist leaning opponent of laissez faire government, yes.

Rather that than an anarcho-fundamentalist

Perhaps the answer is not to dissolve the Federal government but to ensure that all the States are self-sufficient inasmuch as it is possible. And if you can't have the advantage of oil, make sure your energy supply self-sufficiency comes from other sources.

Otherwise you can bet that if individual States do become sovereign and you import your goods, there is generally going to be 15 other fiefdoms your goods are coming through, who'll want to toll you to pay for upkeep to their roads. And what about when you want to sell your services to other States? What about tax returns? What if Idaho taxes at 30% and Indiana at 25%? Farewell to Idaho? Or non-dom status? Sales taxes? Licenses to trade in other States? The idea here is that an individual State becomes a nation, right? You don't just walk into a foreign country and treat it as your own. What about citizenship? Passports? Second homes? Will you need a Visa to go to California?

What about the cost of preventing illegal immigration from, say, Mexico? Should only Texas and California be lumbered with that? What happens when you get the same situation as happened to the UK when Italy and France just packed the illegal immigrants and dumped them on the UK. Suppose Texas just dumps the immigrants onto Nevada, because the Mexican border police don't want em back and anyway are building up for another little border war, given that it's 'only' Texas and not the US any more. (Even though Texas would still kick their asses.)

The more you analyse this idea, the more it looks like you will just have to draw up more rules to deal with the sudden proliferation of sovereign states around you, start addressing the idea of actually importing goods rather than shipping them from somewhere in your own country, and indeed exporting with a license as opposed to just putting stuff on a big rig and driving. Sounds like it could stifle business and have the opposite effect to that intended.

Maybe a lot of these issues have been addressed before, I don't know, but it seems to be the proposition of people looking inward, not outward.

In fact, strange as it may seem, the idea of a Federal government is really meant to harmonise laws across the nation, not to be a bloated money sucker. The secession proposal will just create more laws and red tape, IMO. There has to be other ways of reducing government waste and non-essential influence, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[John Scott]

anarcho-fundamentalist

I'm anarcho-nothing. All forms of anarchy are just stupid; some are even totalitarian. Laissez faire government is nothing radical. It just preserves negative liberties against the threats of collectivist positive rights that in fact encroach on the aforementioned negative liberties.

The nation was founded on it. Rugged individualism. The US practiced a good deal of laissez faire government up until the early 70's, when people figured out they could demand more rights at the expenses of others.

And if you can't have the advantage of oil, make sure your energy supply self-sufficiency comes from other sources.

Your friends, the environmentalist nutjobs, don't want people drilling for oil. It could hurt a bird. In fact, drilling aside, they don't want people using oil. Some of your nutjob friends are even opposed to private ownership of cars.

Otherwise you can bet that if individual States do become sovereign and you import your goods, there is generally going to be 15 other fiefdoms your goods are coming through, who'll want to toll you to pay for upkeep to their roads.

Is that how it is in the European Union? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those states join a union while retaining some level of sovereignty?

And what about when you want to sell your services to other States? What about tax returns? What if Idaho taxes at 30% and Indiana at 25%? Farewell to Idaho? Or non-dom status? Sales taxes? Licenses to trade in other States? The idea here is that an individual State becomes a nation, right? You don't just walk into a foreign country and treat it as your own. What about citizenship? Passports? Second homes? Will you need a Visa to go to California?

E.U.

What about the cost of preventing illegal immigration from, say, Mexico? Should only Texas and California be lumbered with that?

Who is preventing it? And yes, if it is to be prevented, the border states. Or do you think that Canada should share the cost of the US preventing illegals from entering into the US?

Suppose Texas just dumps the immigrants onto Nevada, because the Mexican border police don't want em back and anyway are building up for another little border war, given that it's 'only' Texas and not the US any more.

The EU doesn't have a military? Damn, that's news to me. I'm so damn ignorant.

start addressing the idea of actually importing goods rather than shipping them from somewhere in your own country, and indeed exporting with a license as opposed to just putting stuff on a big rig and driving.

E. U.

The secession proposal will just create more laws and red tape, IMO. There has to be other ways of reducing government waste and non-essential influence, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The United States have out grown the idea of a Federal government. It's precisely because of the combined size of the US that they think they can spend a trillion here, a trillion there, and nobody will raise a fuss. And nobody does.

It's too big to control anymore. I say we all leave the Union, and Washington DC will be the only one left in the "US" and they can figure out how to pay the $9 trillion in debt they will be left with.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I'm anarcho-nothing.

Meh, I was only winding you up.

There's nothing wrong with drilling for oil particularly (but we do share the planet with other species, it's worth remembering that though some don't think it's important). We need to think in terms of greater efficiency and alternate sources, rather than just pushing for greater oil production.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Is that how it is in the European Union? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those states join a union while retaining some level of sovereignty?

Actually, no, believe me, individual sovereignty is being pushed out of the window in the EU. The EU is your worst socialist nightmare. You think the federal government is bloated? The EU would make your eyes boggle, definitely not the model you want to look at when talking about reduction of federalism. How it works in Europe is what you are trying to avoid. The EU are a bunch of robbers - heh, much how you think of Federal government..

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Atom

Well it just seems as though we'd be vulnerable to subservience through common sense.

We can't dissolve the union then worry about the nukes. I seems it should be the other way around.

[Atom]

We'll end up more subservient than we are now, not less.