NationStates Jolt Archive

There are a lot of leftists on this board, many of which support the centralization of government power. What I mean by 'centralization' is NOT a centrist/moderate ideology; I mean the amassing of political power in the Federal government.

While I understand power must be centralized to a degree, I still say that eventually it becomes dangerous. So answer me this: what, to you, makes the centralization of power NOT a dangerous thing?

There are a lot of leftists on this board, many of which support the centralization of government power. What I mean by 'centralization' is NOT a centrist/moderate ideology; I mean the amassing of political power in the Federal government.

While I understand power must be centralized to a degree, I still say that eventually it becomes dangerous. So answer me this: what, to you, makes the centralization of power NOT a dangerous thing?
this'll take me a few days...

There are a lot of leftists on this board, many of which support the centralization of government power. What I mean by 'centralization' is NOT a centrist/moderate ideology; I mean the amassing of political power in the Federal government.

While I understand power must be centralized to a degree, I still say that eventually it becomes dangerous. So answer me this: what, to you, makes the centralization of power NOT a dangerous thing?
rather than asking why it's not dangerous, why not ask what the perceived benefits (perhaps outweighing the dangers) may be?

for instance, a person could admit there are dangers in centralization of the government, but could feel the benefit of uniform standard of law would outweigh those dangers.

I believe they assume that democracy will protect us from government corruption.

I believe they assume that democracy will protect us from government corruption.
Even so, what makes democracy so great? I mean, while I support my country's democracy, what makes it any more or less corrupt than a monarchy or aristocracy?

I am torn between decentralization and centralization. My politics are a mess, Super-power.

But, I'll answer your question specifically. One of the reasons I would support the centralization of power at the federal level is because the federal government can set civil, political and human rights at a minimum standard across the entire nation, as opposed to letting people in, say, New York have butt sex and then allowing Texas to prohibit butt sex.

This is kind of the purpose that the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Supreme Court serves. They're federal shields against the abuse of the states.

Another example is slavery. The outlawing of slavery was a federal directive; leaving it up to the states was a bad idea. Because slavery goes beyond the value of the federalist system.

This is the kind of topic that seperates the men from the boys.

I'm entertained by the notion that anyone could be so naive. :p

the centralization of power at the federal level is because the federal government can set civil, political and human rights at a minimum standard across the entire nation
Here's the thing: I support the federal government's protection of civil rights of the people, and a little beyond that...

However, on issues such as abortion, drug use, the economy, education, and many other issues I value States' Rights as a better method to decide what laws (if there should be any) should be in place - place political power closer to the hands of the governed.

Also, in the past few years we have seen massive centralization of Federal government power in new federal agencies or their expansion - that which cannot be eliminated, or are not absolutely necessary on the Federal level should be turned over to the States

This is the kind of topic that seperates the men from the boys.

I'm entertained by the notion that anyone could be so naive. :pIs it the men who sit back and pompously mock others while failing to contribute, or the boys?

Anyhoo. Pragmatism is the best way to go, Super-power. Pick what to centralize and what not to centralize. Don't go with the whole sha-bang one way or the other; moderation in all things.

As a communist I agree that the centralisation of power is extremely dangerous which is why I believe in the abolition of the state which will wither away in the transition towards communism and this will create a completely democratic society where all decisions are taken directly by those who they affect.

Even so, what makes democracy so great? I mean, while I support my country's democracy, what makes it any more or less corrupt than a monarchy or aristocracy?

In our beautiful democracy, there is nothing that ensures that. We are a consumerist nation that is conditioned to accept the marketing plans that are thrown at us. Combine that with the general apathy of America, and you have very little responsibility in even a democratic government.

Democracy is supposed to make the government responsible to the people, elected officials are required to report to the people as an employer.

The checks maintaining the government are eroding, however, as individuals become politicians as a career choice and not as a duty or service.

As a communist I agree that the centralisation of power is extremely dangerous which is why I believe in the abolition of the state which will wither away in the transition towards communism and this will create a completely democratic society where all decisions are taken directly by those who they affect.

Oh yes, the unattainable goal of the anarcho-communist.

It is a wonderful dream, but will always be a dream.

Here's the thing: I support the federal government's protection of civil rights of the people, and a little beyond that...Well, that's good to hear.

However, on issues such as abortion, drug use, the economy, education, and many other issues I value States' Rights as a better method to decide what laws (if there should be any) should be in place - place political power closer to the hands of the governed.Well, here you run into some problems. Take abortion for example. That is arguably a civil/political rights issue. And before you said you support the federal protection of civil rights. So how do you draw the line? Are things that are morally objectionable to be left to the states? How do you define that?

Economy can really not be left up to the states; at least, not completely. In a global economy, the federal government has to take control. Otherwise we'd have fifty different economic policies at once messing around within American borders. It'd be weird, to say the least.

Drug use? So it's okay to do cocaine in Oklahoma but not in Nebraska? Smuggling would be rampant. Federal guidelines when it comes to what substances/items/materials cannot enter or be used within the United States are almost necessary when it comes to illegal substances - be it C4 or crack.

I agree on education. Make it local. But, yet, what about federal standards? We don't want people in Georgia learning that evolution is a crock because of the politics of that particular state - they would quite simply be not as educated as those who learn otherwise. Yet we can see this happening right now.

Also, in the past few years we have seen massive centralization of Federal government power in new federal agencies or their expansion - that which cannot be eliminated, or are not absolutely necessary on the Federal level should be turned over to the StatesI agree. But government will never give up it's power over the people. If Congress became entirely Libertarian, it would stay the same. Trust me. People want power. You want to limit federal power? Have a revolution. The Founding Fathers had thought we'd've have one by now.

As a communist I agree that the centralisation of power is extremely dangerous which is why I believe in the abolition of the state which will wither away in the transition towards communism and this will create a completely democratic society where all decisions are taken directly by those who they affect.Problem there is that while Marx is quite scientific about the first half of the Revolution, he never describes how the State will wither away after being given complete control over the economy. He's vague on that point. You know why? Because even Marx couldn't figure out precisely how a state would give up complete control; it's in the nature of man - and so, government - to seek and retain power.

A centralized government is a strong government, rigid and fair. A decentralized government is flexible, but easily corruptable, and can easily become biased. I prefer a socialist centralized government; why you may ask? Well I believe that the weak and poor should not be burdened with the governments tab, mentally disabled shouldn't have to work somewhere, where they only got the job out of pity, or laws of the government. The Elderly should not be forced to pay huge fees and bills for medication, a home, or an automobile.

In present systems, the wealthy stay just that wealthy, they get tax breaks and benefits. In a perfect world we would have no need of currency; but this is hardly a perfect world. If you make 100 000 you should pay at least 50 000 of that in taxes, you still have that extra buffer of wealth to be proud of, but you are a benefit to your nation. If you make 30 000, you should pay 3000 in taxes, you still contribute while you maintain a beneficial standard of living. There should be free and complete healthcare for all those who are not big earners.

These things are not possible in a decentralized government because it is too easy to cheat the system; for a wealthy citizen to help bring a friend into power, who then cuts taxes for the wealthy, and increases the burden on the weak, old and poor, who then have to face lingering poverty.

Problem there is that while Marx is quite scientific about the first half of the Revolution, he never describes how the State will wither away after being given complete control over the economy. He's vague on that point. You know why? Because even Marx couldn't figure out precisely how a state would give up complete control; it's in the nature of man - and so, government - to seek and retain power.
I've been asking Communists this question for years, and haven't ever recieved an adequate answer.

Maybe I was vague, but I think the answer to the question is so simple, it must be obvious.
Power has always proven to be corrupting. Having a centralized world government would be like, as O'Rourke said, "Handing whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
I took it for granted before today that everyone must agree that there is no perfect political system deserving control of the entire planet.
I was suprised, but entertained in the process.

I seriously wonder if your assertion, Super Power, is true.

"There are a lot of leftists on this board, many of which support the centralization of government power. What I mean by 'centralization' is NOT a centrist/moderate ideology; I mean the amassing of political power in the Federal government."

There are a lot of leftists on this board. And quite a number of people support some cerntralization of government power, perhaps even a large degree or it. But I somehow doubt that there are more than a tiny handful who would argue that extreme amounts or a totality of power should be in the hands of a central government.

I have see nothing that suggests your assertion is true. Most leftists I have seen on this board would shrink back from the very idea of that kind of power. Still, I'll look back on this thread and see who shows up.

There are a lot of leftists on this board, many of which support the centralization of government power. What I mean by 'centralization' is NOT a centrist/moderate ideology; I mean the amassing of political power in the Federal government.

While I understand power must be centralized to a degree, I still say that eventually it becomes dangerous. So answer me this: what, to you, makes the centralization of power NOT a dangerous thing?

At the end of the day, it depends on the kind of person who is in power. If we had an autocrat who respected gay, womens and ethnic rights while also not being too ambitious ala Mao Tse-Tung, I wouldn't really complain. It would most certainly be better than those three things being curtailed in the name of "freedom of conscience" in our bourgeois democracy.

You know, I think another good argument in favor of a powerful federal government is the historical evidence that the confederate system failed so miserably to serve the needs of the nation, which led to the formation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. So it seems to me as though there is a flaw in allowing states to be too autonomous.

Even so, what makes democracy so great? I mean, while I support my country's democracy, what makes it any more or less corrupt than a monarchy or aristocracy?
Something you don't understand about "Checks and Balances"?

You know, I think another good argument in favor of a powerful federal government is the historical evidence that the confederate system failed so miserably to serve the needs of the nation, which led to the formation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. So it seems to me as though there is a flaw in allowing states to be too autonomous.
Actually, it is much more dangerous to give the Fed more Autonomy than any other...

For Checks and Balances to work, it has to be as even spread out as possible, with the People having the "Final say".

Regards,
Gaar

Something you don't understand about "Checks and Balances"?
That is good in keeping the Legislature and Executive Branches in check - however, the Judiciary Branch is running rampant w/activist judges. Oh, and even Checks and Balances didn't work in keeping the gov't control in terms of the Schiavo case.

My primary beef is with the Necessary and Proper clause, which while limits how the Feds can expand government, still allows the govt to expand.

Actually, it is much more dangerous to give the Fed more Autonomy than any other...

For Checks and Balances to work, it has to be as even spread out as possible, with the People having the "Final say".That still doesn't address the fact that the Federalist system - which is based on taking power away from the States and giving more of it to the Federal Government - has proven to be superior in every way to the Confederate system. An interesting precedent, I would say.

That is good in keeping the Legislature and Executive Branches in check - however, the Judiciary Branch is running rampant w/activist judges. Oh, and even Checks and Balances didn't work in keeping the gov't control in terms of the Schiavo case.

My primary beef is with the Necessary and Proper clause, which while limits how the Feds can expand government, still allows the govt to expand.Precisely. A democracy is only as good as the people who run it, and these "checks and balances" only work if everyone is doing their part. We've already experienced a breakdown in the check/balance relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch -- and we saw Congress try to attack the Courts just a few days ago. Same kind of shit was happening under FDR. We have been teetering dangerously close to losing our system of checks and balances for the last 70 years.

That still doesn't address the fact that the Federalist system - which is based on taking power away from the States and giving more of it to the Federal Government - has proven to be superior in every way to the Confederate system. An interesting precedent, I would say.
And just how do you prove such an assertion?

Precisely. A democracy is only as good as the people who run it, and these "checks and balances" only work if everyone is doing their part. We've already experienced a breakdown in the check/balance relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch -- and we saw Congress try to attack the Courts just a few days ago. Same kind of shit was happening under FDR. We have been teetering dangerously close to losing our system of checks and balances for the last 70 years.
And Monarchies and the like do not?

And how is watching the various Branches of our Government doing their JOB any sort of "attack"?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

That is good in keeping the Legislature and Executive Branches in check - however, the Judiciary Branch is running rampant w/activist judges. Oh, and even Checks and Balances didn't work in keeping the gov't control in terms of the Schiavo case.
That's because YOU believe the Government should have "controlled" the Schiavo case. The Courts obviously disagreed.

My primary beef is with the Necessary and Proper clause, which while limits how the Feds can expand government, still allows the govt to expand.
Yes, at the Will of the People. The People always have the final say, regardless.

Regards,
Gaar

And Monarchies and the like do not?
That's the point I'm trying to make - that monarchies are just as corruptible as a democracy.

That's because YOU believe the Government should have "controlled" the Schiavo case. The Courts obviously disagreed.
Sorry I misphrased that post - I had meant to say that that Checks and Balances didn't work in terms of stopping the Feds' power in that case

Decentralization all the way.

When the Free State of Wisconsin gets into full swing you're all invited.

That's the point I'm trying to make - that monarchies are just as corruptible as a democracy.
Sorry...

In a Monarchy, only one person needs to be corrupted.

In a Democracy, it would take many...

Lincoln...
“By the frame of the government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.”

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry I misphrased that post - I had meant to say that that Checks and Balances didn't work in terms of stopping the Feds' power in that case
Sure it did...

The final say, before the People, is to the Courts...

And they had their say.

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: And this is again, one of those instances that I do not agree with, but the Sysytem worked and a decision was reached. I may not like it, but that's how the System worked, this time.

That is good in keeping the Legislature and Executive Branches in check - however, the Judiciary Branch is running rampant w/activist judges. Oh, and even Checks and Balances didn't work in keeping the gov't control in terms of the Schiavo case.

Under current laws, her husband was the legal guardian. Therefore, legally, it was his decision, and the courts stood by that. Checks and Balances worked perfectly, the courts prevented religiously motivated politicians from taking complete control of the reigns of the state.

This is the kind of topic that seperates the men from the boys.

I'm entertained by the notion that anyone could be so naive. :p
Sexism! What about womyn?!?

Under current laws, her husband was the legal guardian. Therefore, legally, it was his decision, and the courts stood by that. Checks and Balances worked perfectly, the courts prevented religiously motivated politicians from taking complete control of the reigns of the state.
Very well said... :D

Can a democracy protect us though?

Can a democracy protect us though?
What do you mean "protect"?

Here in the U.S., that is supposed to be it's MAIN concern, protecting the Right's of the Individual.

Regards,
Gaar

Sure it did...
C'mon cut me some slack. Oh wait, I should remember that this is the same person who wanted to report antigovt posts to the US govt.

Anyways, "a democracy is nothing more than mob
rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%," if I may quote Mr. Thomas Jefferson

What do you mean "protect"?

Here in the U.S., that is supposed to be it's MAIN concern, protecting the Right's of the Individual.

Regards,
Gaar
that is what I meant. Can it?

C'mon cut me some slack. Oh wait, I should remember that this is the same person who wanted to report antigovt posts to the US govt.

Anyways, "a democracy is nothing more than mob
rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%," if I may quote Mr. Thomas Jefferson
My new favorite quote.

Sexism! What about womyn?!?
Us stupid men believe the term "man" or "men" covers both sexes... :p

We are pretty disrespectful in that respect.

Regards,
Gaar

Here in the U.S., that is supposed to be it's MAIN concern, protecting the Right's of the Individual.
What if the people in power don't think that way? I understand an election is supposed to "weed out" these types of people, but what if elections are suspended? And don't tell me that would never happen....

that is what I meant. Can it?
Yes. As long as the people can do as so many of our Forefathers warned us to be...

Again from Lincoln...
"...While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.”

You see, WE have to be as responsible, if not more so, than that which we hold our Government to.

Regards,
Gaar

What if the people in power don't think that way? I understand an election is supposed to "weed out" these types of people, but what if elections are suspended? And don't tell me that would never happen....
It didn't happen during a Civil War...

What event do you believe would cause such a thing to happen?

Regards,
Gaar

You see, WE have to be as responsible, if not more so, than that which we hold our Government to.
How do you know the people will be responsible? While I believe that the individual knows how to run his or her own life the most responsibly, how do we know they can be responsible towards keeping the government in check?

How do you know the people will be responsible? While I believe that the individual knows how to run his or her own life the most responsibly, how do we know they can be responsible towards keeping the government in check?
I don't, and neither did our Founding Fathers...

That's why they reminded us of it at every chance they got. The rest is up to us!

Regards,
Gaar

It didn't happen during a Civil War...
What event do you believe would cause such a thing to happen?
Regards,
Gaar
A nuclear attack, perhaps? Well that's a bit extreme perhaps, but never underestimate the stupidity of politicians

I don't, and neither did our Founding Fathers...
That's just it, you cannot

And just how do you prove such an assertion?First, I must ask if you're familiar with the history of our country after the Revolutionary War and before the Constitutional Convention.


And Monarchies and the like do not?Stop perceiving every statement as it relates to other statements made in posts that I have nothing to do with. A normative assertion regarding democracy need not reference monarchy. I was describing how a democracy works best. I am not concerned with monarchy.

Absolute monarchies don't rely on checks and balances. That's not how they work. Power is centralized in the monarch. Checks and balances aren't even an issue.

And how is watching the various Branches of our Government doing their JOB any sort of "attack"?!?!Because each branch is meant to know it's place; it's limits. Purposefully attempting to neuter or bypass another branch is a violation of that branch's constitutional powers, and is wholly illegal. Congress attempted to legislate the way the Courts function; that is not within their power. It was illegal. It was struck down. It was a completely political move engineered by a group of people who have little regard for the checks and balances you hold so dear.

That's just it, you cannot
Yes, and as History has shown us... Neither can any other Systems you can point to...

So what's your point?

Regards,
Gaar

First, I must ask if you're familiar with the history of our country after the Revolutionary War and before the Constitutional Convention.

Four years, what about them?

Because each branch is meant to know it's place; it's limits. Purposefully attempting to neuter or bypass another branch is a violation of that branch's constitutional powers, and is wholly illegal. Congress attempted to legislate the way the Courts function; that is not within their power. It was illegal. It was struck down. It was a completely political move engineered by a group of people who have little regard for the checks and balances you hold so dear.
No, each Branch is meant to know it's "duty" to check the actions of the Branches they oversee, not "check" their own.

I'm not sure what action you are refering to here, so it would be hard for me to comment either way, since you make no reference to any act...

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, and as History has shown us... Neither can any other Systems you can point to...
So what's your point?

I am not advocating any other system over democracy - however I wanted to show you (and I believe that I was successful) that democracy is not the be-all end-all governmental system we want it to be

Can a democracy protect us though?

A democracy can't protect anyone, it gives us the ability to protect ourselves.

How do you know the people will be responsible? While I believe that the individual knows how to run his or her own life the most responsibly, how do we know they can be responsible towards keeping the government in check?

It doesn't matter whether people will be responsible, it only matters whether or not they are afforded the responsibility.

If you begin to question whether the people will be responsible or not, you begin to wander into Hobbesian territory, and then you start making arguments for a strong central government.

A democracy can't protect anyone, it gives us the ability to protect ourselves.
Giving us the ability to protect ourselves . . . which is what (individual) autonomy advocates. Out of curiosity do you think democracy and individual autonomy can coexist?

Giving us the ability to protect ourselves . . . which is what (individual) autonomy advocates. Out of curiosity do you think democracy and individual autonomy can coexist?

As long as protections are made against mob rule, democracy is the best way to provide for the autonomy of the people.

Until will we realize the anarchists dream we must work for a checked democracy.

Four years, what about them?Under the Articles of Confederation, each state minted it's own money, trade laws were a mess, war could actually break out between individual states, the nation could not raise an army but simply use local militias and the national Congress required a nigh-consensus in order to take any action. It was a messy, terrible system, that simply wasn't working. I would think that if you had studied the years between 1781 and 1789 in the United States, you would know this, and understand that too much states rights doesn't work, at least not in the confederate system.
No, each Branch is meant to know it's "duty" to check the actions of the Branches they oversee, not "check" their own.So each branch should attempt to supercede the authority of the others and never attempt to stay it's own hand? That's an advocation of an increase in government power if I ever heard one, Urantia.
I'm not sure what action you are refering to here, so it would be hard for me to comment either way, since you make no reference to any act...I'm referring to Congress's "Terri's Law," which basically attempted to regulate the way the state and federal courts worked. Which was unconstitutional.