NationStates Jolt Archive

Tonight on another forum I mention that I wasn't going to vote for the Democratic ticket nor the Republican ticket for the 2008 election, I was going to vote for the Libertarian ticket. (Let's face it, Ron Paul isn't going to get the nod.) When I mentioned this, another poster why don't I just vote for the "lesser" evil since the Libertarians have a snowball in chance to win. This is one of the problem with our government today, people are content with voting for the "lesser" evil, they are content with voting for someone who'll do the lesser damage. Face it, it doesn't matter who'll be doing the lesser damage, it'll still be damage. You may vote for the "lesser" evil, but it'll still be evil. But of course the average voter doesn't care, as long as they have their American Idol, their Hollywood, their IPod and internet porn, they don't care if every four years we're voting for the same pile of shit with a different face on it. Let's face it, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans offer anyone who is different than from Bush or Bill Clinton, and those who are different on either side of the isles are never going to get nominated because they're considered "radical".

Well I'm sorry America, I won't be content with voting for the "lesser" evil, I won't vote for a party who I think will lead us down the wrong path (and that goes for D and R), I am one of those Americans who want change, and I mean real change, and I will demand it with every ballot that I cast and every Libertarian rally that I attend.

Apparently I am in the minority.

Other than some rage against the machine-esq self congratulating monlogue, what was the point of this?

Agreed, Wilgrove. As long as people continue to choose Bowl of Shit A or Bowl of Shit B, we'll continue to get stuck with...well, shit.

Other than some rage against the machine-esq self congratulating monlogue, what was the point of this?

Ditto.

Other than some rage against the machine-esq self congratulating monlogue, what was the point of this?

To get idi....I mean people to see the truth about what our elections have really become?

And you assume you're the only one who ever thought of that why?

And you assume you're the only one who ever thought of that why?

Because most people continue to vote for Bowl of Shit A and Bowl of Shit B.

And you assume you're the only one who ever thought of that why?

You haven't realize the fact that there's a good possibility that we may have yet another Clinton in office? So far it's been Bush, Clintion, Bush, and if she wins in '08 Clinton? God forbid if Jeb wants to run.

You haven't realize the fact that there's a good possibility that we may have yet another Clinton in office? So far it's been Bush, Clintion, Bush, and if she wins in '08 Clinton? God forbid if Jeb wants to run.

what does the fact that her husband once served as president have to do with her qualifications or capabilities of handling the office?

In other words, so what if her husband was president? What's that have to do with her qualities as a leader?

To get idi....I mean people to see the truth about what our elections have really become?

We've known about this for about 40-50 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law). Really, one hasn't uncovered any "truth" that wasn't already well known; this is basic Political Science 101. The reason why nothing has come of it is because essentially bulldozing the entire constitution of a state and starting over is a wee bit difficult to accomplish.

Going around calling people "idiots" doesn't help much, either. Especially considering that the "idiots" have little to nothing to do with the problem.

Screw that, im movin' to Canada.

Right behind you, they actually have lower income taxes than the USA! :eek:

You haven't realize the fact that there's a good possibility that we may have yet another Clinton in office? So far it's been Bush, Clintion, Bush, and if she wins in '08 Clinton? God forbid if Jeb wants to run.


Screw that, im movin' to Canada.

Especially considering that the "idiots" have little to nothing to do with the problem.

They're the ones who keep voting for Bowl of Shit A and Bowl of Shit B, effectively fucking over the rest of us.

RP isn't a real libertarian, he's far too sheepish and I suspect doesn't even care about social issues, he's closer to a right-wing populist.

They're the ones who keep voting for Bowl of Shit A and Bowl of Shit B, effectively fucking over the rest of us.

Of course, if the electoral system were of such a nature that more than two choices were even possible...

I provided a link for a reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law).

The characteristics of the electoral system make "Bowl of Shit" C an inviable option. One can pout about all one wants to. But C will never get more than 1% of the vote until either A or B go away, or the constitution of the electoral system is changed to allow more more than two viable options (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_Representation). As such, there is simply no reason to vote for C at the present time.

Actually I consider all the GOP candidates 'radicals', they all support the continuation of the private health system which has caused untold suffering on millions of Americans through lack of treatment etc. When you consider that most of the developed world that can afford a universal nationalized system, have one, then the US seems backwards, even my country with a conservative government has national health care, I went to the doctors the other day and I didn't have to pay for it, and neither should anyone - health care is a human right.

Not trying to be partisan, but all the Democrats are offering national systems, and I consider for America that to be the most important issue after Iraq.

Actually I consider all the GOP candidates 'radicals', they all support the continuation of the private health system which has caused untold suffering on millions of Americans through lack of treatment etc. When you consider that most of the developed world that can afford a universal nationalized system, have one, then the US seems backwards, even my country with a conservative government has national health care, I went to the doctors the other day and I didn't have to pay for it, and neither should anyone - health care is a human right.

Not trying to be partisan, but all the Democrats are offering national systems, and I consider for America that to be the most important issue after Iraq.

If you paid taxes, you paid for it, first off. Second, "everyone else does it" isn't much of an argument. ;) It is an important issue though, to be sure. With Democrats beginning to come around on Iraq, it's their core issue now.

Tonight on another forum I mention that I wasn't going to vote for the Democratic ticket nor the Republican ticket for the 2008 election, I was going to vote for the Libertarian ticket. (Let's face it, Ron Paul isn't going to get the nod.) When I mentioned this, another poster why don't I just vote for the "lesser" evil since the Libertarians have a snowball in chance to win. This is one of the problem with our government today, people are content with voting for the "lesser" evil, they are content with voting for someone who'll do the lesser damage. Face it, it doesn't matter who'll be doing the lesser damage, it'll still be damage. You may vote for the "lesser" evil, but it'll still be evil. But of course the average voter doesn't care, as long as they have their American Idol, their Hollywood, their IPod and internet porn, they don't care if every four years we're voting for the same pile of shit with a different face on it. Let's face it, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans offer anyone who is different than from Bush or Bill Clinton, and those who are different on either side of the isles are never going to get nominated because they're considered "radical".

Well I'm sorry America, I won't be content with voting for the "lesser" evil, I won't vote for a party who I think will lead us down the wrong path (and that goes for D and R), I am one of those Americans who want change, and I mean real change, and I will demand it with every ballot that I cast and every Libertarian rally that I attend.

Apparently I am in the minority.
No, you'll just vote for the silly weird evil. :rolleyes:

If you paid taxes, you paid for it, first off. Second, "everyone else does it" isn't much of an argument. ;) It is an important issue though, to be sure. With Democrats beginning to come around on Iraq, it's their core issue now.
Paying for health care as if it were a consumer item is far different than universal care paid for by progressive revenues, then of course it's much for equitable.

Paying for health care as if it were a consumer item is far different than universal care paid for by progressive revenues, then of course it's much for equitable.

So long as we're in agreement that there are no free lunches here. ;) And, I might add, that we do have social services for people who can't afford healthcare in this country. But healthcare won't be any less of a consumer good if the government meddles with it - people who can afford better will buy better regardless. And of course, knowing our government, it probably won't be too difficult for the private sector to provide better.

No, you'll just vote for the silly weird evil. :rolleyes:

:D

You haven't realize the fact that there's a good possibility that we may have yet another Clinton in office? So far it's been Bush, Clintion, Bush, and if she wins in '08 Clinton? God forbid if Jeb wants to run.

I doubt he would run; Family friend who work(s) in Jeb's 'faction' said if he were going to run, there would have been preparation long ago.

I'd hate to see Hillary because if the unknown. She has lacked clarity, she is arrogant to the point to unable accept that policies of the past she has tried to push through, did not get through because of real problems rather than political vendetta.

As for the Republican side; as much as I'd like to see Rudy/McCain team, I'll put money on it the Republicans will vote for someone unelectable by virtue of their stupid notion that 'social conservatism trumps all'. Has anyone informed them social conservatism died years ago?

Has anyone informed then social conservatism died years ago?

We tried but we keep getting their voice mail.

So long as we're in agreement that there are no free lunches here. ;) And, I might add, that we do have social services for people who can't afford healthcare in this country. But healthcare won't be any less of a consumer good if the government meddles with it - people who can afford better will buy better regardless. And of course, knowing our government, it probably won't be too difficult for the private sector to provide better.
Of course, it's a myth that public and private health can co-oexist, private health will always undermine public health, which explains why Cuba has been able to amass one of the best universal systems in the world, on par with many other nations, despite limited resources and the embargo, and have excess doctors to send thousands abroad on social justice missions. Privatization demeans health.

Tonight on another forum I mention that I wasn't going to vote for the Democratic ticket nor the Republican ticket for the 2008 election, I was going to vote for the Libertarian ticket. (Let's face it, Ron Paul isn't going to get the nod.) When I mentioned this, another poster why don't I just vote for the "lesser" evil since the Libertarians have a snowball in chance to win. This is one of the problem with our government today, people are content with voting for the "lesser" evil, they are content with voting for someone who'll do the lesser damage. Face it, it doesn't matter who'll be doing the lesser damage, it'll still be damage. You may vote for the "lesser" evil, but it'll still be evil. But of course the average voter doesn't care, as long as they have their American Idol, their Hollywood, their IPod and internet porn, they don't care if every four years we're voting for the same pile of shit with a different face on it. Let's face it, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans offer anyone who is different than from Bush or Bill Clinton, and those who are different on either side of the isles are never going to get nominated because they're considered "radical".

Well I'm sorry America, I won't be content with voting for the "lesser" evil, I won't vote for a party who I think will lead us down the wrong path (and that goes for D and R), I am one of those Americans who want change, and I mean real change, and I will demand it with every ballot that I cast and every Libertarian rally that I attend.

Apparently I am in the minority.

Bush's form of fascism is bad. The democrats are not much better.

Neither is in any way a 'greater evil' than a Libertarian 'government' would be.

Voting for Stalin or Hitler would be better than voting for a Libertarian government.

Unfortunately, your whole proposal rests on the assumption that Libertarianism is not fatally flawed, totally unrealistic and intrinsically evil.

Bush's form of fascism is bad. The democrats are not much better.

Neither is in any way a 'greater evil' than a Libertarian 'government' would be.

Voting for Stalin or Hitler would be better than voting for a Libertarian government.

Unfortunately, your whole proposal rests on the assumption that Libertarianism is not fatally flawed, totally unrealistic and intrinsically evil.

It would only be an issue if it were a nihilistic society. Libertarianism per say is not nihilism.

Of course, it's a myth that public and private health can co-oexist, private health will always undermine public health, which explains why Cuba has been able to amass one of the best universal systems in the world, on par with many other nations, despite limited resources and the embargo, and have excess doctors to send thousands abroad on social justice missions. Privatization demeans health.

Well, that sounds absolutist and unreasonable to me. Private and public healthcare will coexist just fine here if the latter is ever adopted. I don't have a slogan to back that up, but I'm confident nonetheless. And grateful not to live in Cuba, as well. ;)

It would only be an issue if it were a nihilistic society. Libertarianism per say is not nihilism.

No. It is unrestricted selfishness as an ideal, and fuck everyone else.

At least Stalin and Hitler could be argued as having some vision of serving the greater good.

No. It is unrestricted selfishness as an ideal, and fuck everyone else.

At least Stalin and Hitler could be argued as having some vision of serving the greater good.

Yea, if only they didn't kill their political enemies or Jews, Muslim, Homosexuals, basically anyone who isn't considered Aryan.

Well, that sounds absolutist and unreasonable to me. Private and public healthcare will coexist just fine here if the latter is ever adopted. I don't have a slogan to back that up, but I'm confident nonetheless. And grateful not to live in Cuba, as well. ;)

The UK has public healthcare, and a private sector that is constantly eroding it. All it does is create a two-tier system which damages the universal model at the expense of the common (wo)man, and benefits the rich by hurting the poor(er).

It's not even that good an idea on paper, but it's better in theory than in practise.

No. It is unrestricted selfishness as an ideal, and fuck everyone else.

At least Stalin and Hitler could be argued as having some vision of serving the greater good.

Do you even know what Libertarianism is? the idea is a situation where the restrictions one has are the ones we impose on ourselves rather than through some extensive government. Libertarianism moves the responsibility from the state to the individual, leaving the individual to regular his or her own activities.

*NOW* the risk is that if a society which as a Nihlistic tendency becomes libertarian, there is a risk of a facist to rise out of the 'ashes' claiming that society needs a 'big strong government' to provide 'direction' to the country - for those idiots who find the whole idea of 'freedom' as a scary concept. Scared that they have control over their own life, that they're the decider of which direction they should head in rather than government setting an over all policy for their life.

Do you even know what Libertarianism is? the idea is a situation where the restrictions one has are the ones we impose on ourselves rather than through some extensive government. Libertarianism moves the responsibility from the state to the individual, leaving the individual to regular his or her own activities.

*NOW* the risk is that if a society which as a Nihlistic tendency becomes libertarian, there is a risk of a facist to rise out of the 'ashes' claiming that society needs a 'big strong government' to provide 'direction' to the country - for those idiots who find the whole idea of 'freedom' as a scary concept. Scared that they have control over their own life, that they're the decider of which direction they should head in rather than government setting an over all policy for their life.

It's unrealistic. It's self-destructive (which I'm fine with), but it's also destructive on a greater scale. Absolute liberty is an idiotic concept in the real world... we overlap too much, we are too interdependent. Libertarianism - if it were the current model in the US, for example - would probably have already killed more people this year, than Stalin managed to rack up in his entire career.

Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water. Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water. And it's looking like even stronger action will be required in the coming year.

Some things are just too important to devolve.

Yea, if only they didn't kill their political enemies or Jews, Muslim, Homosexuals, basically anyone who isn't considered Aryan.

Stalin had an Aryan agenda?

Stalin and Hitler targetted people that were counter-productive to the greater good - as they saw it.

Libertarianism doesn't target anyone - you'd die not by direct persecution, but by neglect. I'm not sure anyone would be made happier by the distinction in their epitaph.

Apparently I am in the minority.I'm right there with you. Unless Gore runs for the Democrats, I'm voting Green.

Down with the two-party-system!

Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water. Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water. And it's looking like even stronger action will be required in the coming year.

Some things are just too important to devolve.Why, that would be akin to having a village common grazed clear by cattle because no one was clever enough to realize that by maximizing their own stock, they would ruin the commons for everyone! A tragedy of the commons, so to speak...

Why, that would be akin to having a village common grazed clear by cattle because no one was clever enough to realize that by maximizing their own stock, they would ruin the commons for everyone! A tragedy of the commons, so to speak...

Indeed. Libertarianism is self-serving and incredibly short-sighted. It's not only 'screw-you, I'm-alright', it's also 'screw-you, I'm-alright-NOW'. It's the blind selfishness that people complain about being the big flaw of most capitalist-mass-consumer models, raised to the (il)logical conclusion.

Tragedy of the commons. I like that. :)

Tragedy of the commons. I like that. :)Yeah. China is a good example of that at the moment. Limited (or poorly enforced) regulation in the past has led to some pretty extreme environmental degradation, mainly of such common resources as air and water, simply because it was more profitable not to implement cleaner technologies in the short run. The consequence is that cities with populations in the millions have to sustain their populations with bottled water every once in a while.

Well, that sounds absolutist and unreasonable to me. Private and public healthcare will coexist just fine here if the latter is ever adopted. I don't have a slogan to back that up, but I'm confident nonetheless. And grateful not to live in Cuba, as well. ;)
I'd live in Cuba if I could, and that's because I know it's a good place to live. It's not 'good' in the way capitalists would think, you can't be excessively extravagant just for the sake of it, but you have a real sense of community and direction in life, the mindless consumption for the sake of consumption of capitalist breeds hopelessness and cynicism to life in general. I don't think I could possibly describe my hatred of the nihilistic relativity of liberalism, it must be the most backward and tragic idea ever to befall humanity.

Libertarianism - if it were the current model in the US, for example - would probably have already killed more people this year, than Stalin managed to rack up in his entire career.

Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water. Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water.

yes, but they'd have been poor people, so it's all ok.

Yeah. China is a good example of that at the moment. Limited (or poorly enforced) regulation in the past has led to some pretty extreme environmental degradation, mainly of such common resources as air and water, simply because it was more profitable not to implement cleaner technologies in the short run. The consequence is that cities with populations in the millions have to sustain their populations with bottled water every once in a while.

People just don't make good stewards, in general. Those of us that have voices of reason are often an unpopular minority, although at least now the message is becoming a little more acceptable in the mainstream. Whenever people are allowed to run unfettered (on a smaller scale, or a larger scale) the tendency is heavily towards shortsighted self-service. Governments really should know better, and that's a major failing of the Chinese powers-that-be (and of those of the US, obviously). The difference is - what China has done through being lax, libertarianism mandates.

yes, but they'd have been poor people, so it's all ok.

Mainly poor people, certainly. One of the reasons it's actually getting attention, of course, is that it's not JUST the poor any more. Basically everyone outside of the immediate watershed of the Great Lakes ran into problems this year - rich or poor.

But yes, when they start dying, it'll be the poor first. The rich will be able to import their water.

No. It is unrestricted selfishness as an ideal, and fuck everyone else.

Strawman.

At least Stalin and Hitler could be argued as having some vision of serving the greater good.

Show me examples of libertarians killing millions of people, and you might have a convincing argument. As it stands, you don't.

It's unrealistic. It's self-destructive (which I'm fine with), but it's also destructive on a greater scale. Absolute liberty is an idiotic concept in the real world... we overlap too much, we are too interdependent. Libertarianism - if it were the current model in the US, for example - would probably have already killed more people this year, than Stalin managed to rack up in his entire career.

Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water. Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water. And it's looking like even stronger action will be required in the coming year.

Some things are just too important to devolve.

Prove it.

Prove it.You prove that Americans will avoid overusing water if there is no authority to tell them not to.

You prove that Americans will avoid overusing water if there is no authority to tell them not to.

It's not something I can prove or disprove. But saying libertarianism would kill more people than Stalin is not only silly, it's downright stupid.

It's not something I can prove or disprove. But saying libertarianism would kill more people than Stalin is not only silly, it's downright stupid.Well, to be honest, if people are no longer required to wear seatbelts, I'm sure the amount of fatal traffic accidents will skyrocket, so it's not as silly as it sounds.

Strawman.


Errr... no. Not really a strawman. You could say it was wrong. You could say my opinion is in error...

I'd say libertarianism is absolutely about selfishness. Definitively, even. I think it absolutely about 'me first'... again, practically the definition of it.


Show me examples of libertarians killing millions of people, and you might have a convincing argument. As it stands, you don't.

That response isn't relevent to the point I made. My point was about a belief in serving 'the greater good', as they saw it. Also - if you've read my other responses, you'll see your 'question' already addressed elsewhere.

But - let's look at it for a second... why has libertarianism NOT killed millions (if, indeed, that is true)? Well, libertarianism is (at least in the US) held in check by a degree of control... so it hasn't really had it's day yet. Although - you could probably make an argument that Bush's devil-may-care approach is a gesture in the direction of what we could expect.

A more pressing example might be Italy... where lack of personal accountability is inextricably tied to organised crime. Where regulation is removed, alternatives step in. It's not unreasonable to use Italy as a model... if Libertarians held sway, we could expect 10% of our economy to flow through the mafia, too.

Errr... no. Not really a strawman. You could say it was wrong. You could say my opinion is in error...

I'd say libertarianism is absolutely about selfishness. Definitively, even. I think it absolutely about 'me first'... again, practically the definition of it.

The fact that many libertarians are selfish doesn't mean libertarianism is about selfishness. Libertarianism is simply the belief that people are entitled to live whatever kind of life they want, do whatever they wish, etc. provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights. Whether they choose to be selfish or not is completely up to them.

But - let's look at it for a second... why has libertarianism NOT killed millions (if, indeed, that is true)? Well, libertarianism is (at least in the US) held in check by a degree of control... so it hasn't really had it's day yet. Although - you could probably make an argument that Bush's devil-may-care approach is a gesture in the direction of what we could expect.

Libertarians are laissez faire (hands off), Bush is not. Bush doesn't want to keep the state's hands off of the economy, but thrust firmly down the pants of big business. What the U.S. has a sickly hybrid of corporatism, corporate socialism (a term Nader once used), crony capitalism, and welfarism.

Libertarianism is simply the belief that people are entitled to live whatever kind of life they want, do whatever they wish, etc. provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights.
But that is a fundamentally selfish ideology. That is, the self is the centre position relative to which the rest of the world is just consideration.

You can refute this being a bad thing, if you like, but there's no sense pretending it's not an accurate assertion.

Prove what?

This:

Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water.

Prove it.

Prove what?

The water shortages?

One-fifth of ALL of the world's fresh surface water is in The Great Lakes. One-fifth. That's ALL of the fresh surface water in the world... a fifth of that exists in one place, and it's here in the US.

Under those circumstances... how can we possibly have been in a position this year where water supplies have been so tight? Huge water-use restrictions... did you know that some states have had to mandate production limations (that means hitting the water supply NOT at the customer end, but by literally not allowing water treatment to withdraw the water in the first place)? We've even had water supplies that have literally run dry. I don't mean personal shallow wells... I mean actual municipal water supplies.

Without the restrictions we HAVE had on water, what would have stopped consumption of water? Even WITH restriction, we have had municapilities running dry. Imagine it withOUT restriction.

Libertarians are laissez faire (hands off), Bush is not. Bush doesn't want to keep the state's hands off of the economy, but thrust firmly down the pants of big business. What the U.S. has a sickly hybrid of corporatism, corporate socialism (a term Nader once used), crony capitalism, and welfarism.A hands off stance on economy will result in monopolies or oligarchical cartels, and that's definitely not in anyone's best interest that isn't involved in either.

A good example here would be the German energy market, which is pretty much divided up amongst four large companies. They've been raising prices as they wish for so long now that the government is looking into breaking them up and taking them to court over illegal agreements on pricing to avoid competition. Now imagine what it would be like if such agreements weren't illegal.

It's not something I can prove or disprove. But saying libertarianism would kill more people than Stalin is not only silly, it's downright stupid.

No - it's really not. If you remove regulation, you allow liberty to use or abuse.

Like I said - I don't care if a person is self-destructive. I think people should be allowed to be SELF-destructive. But - well, water is just such a good example... people WILL die without water. And they will die quickly, and they will die in great numbers.

And the only thing that is ensuring the water supply in the US, is heavily interventionist regulation.

If Stalin killed 60 million (and some sources claim it was a lot less)... it isn't even unrealistic to imagine a libertarian 'government' could beat Stalin's toll... in a month.

The fact that many libertarians are selfish doesn't mean libertarianism is about selfishness. Libertarianism is simply the belief that people are entitled to live whatever kind of life they want, do whatever they wish, etc. provided they aren't violating anyone else's rights. Whether they choose to be selfish or not is completely up to them.


Perhaps we understand different things by the term selfish. Focusing entirely on 'living whatever kind of life you want' IS selfish. Doing 'whatever you wish' IS selfish.

You could be giving away all your money, and it could be a selfish act. That's because being selfish is about being self-ish. Hence, one might argue, the word.

So - libertarianism, even by your own (cutely mitigating) definitions, is inextricably, unarguably, selfish. By definition.


Libertarians are laissez faire (hands off), Bush is not. Bush doesn't want to keep the state's hands off of the economy, but thrust firmly down the pants of big business. What the U.S. has a sickly hybrid of corporatism, corporate socialism (a term Nader once used), crony capitalism, and welfarism.

Bush has reduced the pressure to submit to regulation on air pollution, for example. Attempted to loosen restriction on liberty to capitalise on ecologically important, nationally-owned, land. Bush hasn't done it for the libertarian shits-and-giggles of it. As you say, he's done it because he sees it serving vested interests. But the motivation doesn't matter - it's the ends that count.

i would LOVE to see an election in which the libertarians and the greens EACH got more votes then EIGHTHER the replicrats or the demicans. i'd love to. but i'm not holding my breath. hillary or obama, with all their warts, will PROBABLY get my vote. unless, the grip of the corporate mafia really slips that much than anything like what america pretends to be stands a real chance.

the greens actually have someone OTHER then nader tapped to run this time.

i'd like to see her win.

one thing for sure, the economic forces that gave us sir shrubery the simple are forcing on the planet what is effectively the collective suicide of all life on it.

we've still got most of a year if i'm not mistaken. a year in which a number of things both bad and good, can happen. things that might make a big difference in another eleven months.

i wish there was a u.n. with teeth that could force the divestiture of superpowers into bioregeonal components. i think that day will come.

a joining of the united nations with the world court with a few interesting improvements in the latter's structure.

we do not yet live in a world where we can afford not to vote for the lesser of two evils, yet, but that day will come. it may not come before november 2008, although it just bearly could. it might happen by november of 2012 though, or 2016.

hell, by 2016, we could be living in a VERY different world. and in several senses we almost certainly will be.

i don't know if the world will roll over for the u.s. or find some way of stopping it, but the effects of global climate chainge will have become completely undeniable and obvious, and very likely a majority of average income people will no longer be able to afford to drive.

=^^=
.../\...

This:

You noticed the drought, I assume? (Oh... maybe you aren't in the US?)

Here's a cute little toy: http://droughtreporter.unl.edu/

It shows if the drought has been having any noticable impact, even mitigated as it has been by such things as use-restriction, and withdrawal limitations. It's not big on detail, but it is big on showing that the problem is pretty much universal, even WITH heavily interventionist regulation.

Example of State of Emergency: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/20/national/main3388293.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._3388293

Worryingly - there is no national drought plan.

Here's an example of a municipal water supply running dry - even with regulation and restrcition. Imagine this on a grand scale, if there were no national regulation: http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_116378.asp

The really scary thing is - the knock on effects. Metro Atlanta uses 500 million gallons a day... but the Georgia power generation industry uses almost ten times that much making electricity. Thirst, and being dirty, are not the only problems we'd face without water regulation.

there is only one real reason to vote for a 3rd party--to build that party.

if you believe in the libertarian party you should vote for it. i DONT believe in the libertarian party so it would be stupid for me to vote for them. it would be voting for the lesser of 3 evils. (actually it would be voting for the greatest of 3 evils but no need to go into that, grave'n is doing just fine)

the problem with 3rd parties is that they are so hopeless that they have no incentive to be sane. this is especially obvious in the libertarian party but its also true of every other 3rd party (excepting that one that ross perot started but that has a very different circumstance that no one is interested in).

so no, im not going to ally myself with a bunch of extremists who have no regard for how politics works in the real world. id rather push those issues within the major parties where they have a chance of being implemented if you get the party to accept them.

Face it, it doesn't matter who'll be doing the lesser damage, it'll still be damage.

Obviously.

But since one or the other will win, less damage is better than more damage.

I will demand it with every ballot that I cast and every Libertarian rally that I attend.

You mean, you'll pointlessly throw away your vote to a party without the slightest chance of winning? Okay.

Let's face it, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans offer anyone who is different than from Bush or Bill Clinton, and those who are different on either side of the isles are never going to get nominated because they're considered "radical".Different doesn't necessarily mean better.

Different doesn't necessarily mean better.

Sure as hell beat the pile of turds the Democrats and Republican wants to nominate right now. All Rudy is going to do is continue Bush Jr. policies and all Hillary is going to do is raise our taxes and redefine what "rich" is (here's a hint, the salary base isn't going to go up) for a corrupted bureaucratic system set up by Gov. Co. that'll be counter-productive to the problem that it's supposed to solve. IE cause more problem than it's worth.

Well I'm sorry America, I won't be content with voting for the "lesser" evil, I won't vote for a party who I think will lead us down the wrong path (and that goes for D and R), I am one of those Americans who want change, and I mean real change, and I will demand it with every ballot that I cast and every Libertarian rally that I attend.

Apparently I am in the minority.

Good for you and amen brother. I have no idea at this point who I will vote for as I am an Independent and cannot vote in the primaries. I do know that I'm sick and tired of "business as usual" in Washington and until we clean the place out it will continue to be the same. I have voted for third party candidates in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

(excepting that one that ross perot started but that has a very different circumstance that no one is interested in).


I would've been one of the people who voted for him as a third-party candidate. I'd like to see someone like him come around again.

Other than some rage against the machine-esq self congratulating monlogue, what was the point of this?

I do believe the point is "if all the people who vote for the "lesser of two evils" voted for a third party candidate that they believe in, we could have a viable third party in this country. This "a third party candidate can't win mentality" sucks. If everyone who thought that voted third party the third party just might win.

You haven't realize the fact that there's a good possibility that we may have yet another Clinton in office? So far it's been Bush, Clintion, Bush, and if she wins in '08 Clinton? God forbid if Jeb wants to run.

And by the time Jeb spent a term or two in office we could have Chelsea running, then....and they say we don't have royalty in the US.

Actually I consider all the GOP candidates 'radicals', they all support the continuation of the private health system which has caused untold suffering on millions of Americans through lack of treatment etc. When you consider that most of the developed world that can afford a universal nationalized system, have one, then the US seems backwards, even my country with a conservative government has national health care, I went to the doctors the other day and I didn't have to pay for it, and neither should anyone - health care is a human right.

Not trying to be partisan, but all the Democrats are offering national systems, and I consider for America that to be the most important issue after Iraq.

If a National Universal Health Care system is so great why do we have people in those countries waiting months for surgery or coming to the private health care system in the US for treatment.

If you think the government can be so great in providing a good health care system, I invite you to visit the nearest VA medical facility and talk to the patients there. :(

Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water.

You have watched "Dr. Strangeglove" to many times. :D

If a National Universal Health Care system is so great why do we have people in those countries waiting months for surgery or coming to the private health care system in the US for treatment.


I don't think his point was that the rich get great treatment :)

I do believe the point is "if all the people who vote for the "lesser of two evils" voted for a third party candidate that they believe in, we could have a viable third party in this country. This "a third party candidate can't win mentality" sucks. If everyone who thought that voted third party the third party just might win.

The problem, of course... is that - just like the two main parties - there is no uniformity about who would be a good third party candidate. The US Communist Party won't even stand for national election any more, a lot of people (especially 'independent' voters) wouldn't touch libertarian candidates with a ten-foot cattleprod... and most 'serious' independents are tied to a main party, or presented as though they are.

Plus, the points I made about how hard it is to even get 'on the ticket'.

So - you end up with the two main 'factions' (protecting their little monopoly) closely splitting the main vote, and a handful of tokens variously sharing out what might form a third-party-share, IF it was uniform.

And that's before you start dealing with voter apathy, low turnouts, 'brand loyalty' so prevalent in US politics, and the way US elections are advertising campaigns, not political ones...

You have watched "Dr. Strangeglove" to many times. :D

Not sure I've ever seen it, actually.

But I am intimately (one could say professionally) familiar with environmental issues, especially such as the current drought emergencies, and the longterm picture.

If a National Universal Health Care system is so great why do we have people in those countries waiting months for surgery or coming to the private health care system in the US for treatment.


Because money talks in the US. SO - the very wealthy elsewhere in the world can buy the best the US has to offer.

As for waiting months... I can only speak for the UK national health service... quite simply, they prioritise. If you NEED treatment now, you get it now. If you don't... well, someone who does need it now jumps the line a bit.


If you think the government can be so great in providing a good health care system, I invite you to visit the nearest VA medical facility and talk to the patients there. :(

I have a workmate who constantly bitches about how shoddily he is treated by the VA. He seems oblivious to the fact that he is able to afford medical care pretty much when he wants it, that he has this easy access to specialists in 'his' problems, and that his medication alone would bankrupt me if I had to pay for it.

Just because the pretty nurse won't jerk you off, doesn't mean you're being mistreated.

Sure as hell beat the pile of turds the Democrats and Republican wants to nominate right now. All Rudy is going to do is continue Bush Jr. policies and all Hillary is going to do is raise our taxes and redefine what "rich" is (here's a hint, the salary base isn't going to go up) for a corrupted bureaucratic system set up by Gov. Co. that'll be counter-productive to the problem that it's supposed to solve. IE cause more problem than it's worth.I'm not disagreeing with this, I was disagreeing with the idea that something other than this must be better.

Agreed, Wilgrove. As long as people continue to choose Bowl of Shit A or Bowl of Shit B, we'll continue to get stuck with...well, shit.

Because most people continue to vote for Bowl of Shit A and Bowl of Shit B.

that analogy is gross...who puts shit in a bowl...ugh..

Do you even know what Libertarianism is? the idea is a situation where the restrictions one has are the ones we impose on ourselves rather than through some extensive government. Libertarianism moves the responsibility from the state to the individual, leaving the individual to regular his or her own activities.

*NOW* the risk is that if a society which as a Nihlistic tendency becomes libertarian, there is a risk of a facist to rise out of the 'ashes' claiming that society needs a 'big strong government' to provide 'direction' to the country - for those idiots who find the whole idea of 'freedom' as a scary concept. Scared that they have control over their own life, that they're the decider of which direction they should head in rather than government setting an over all policy for their life.

Social Darwinism: if you're poor, it's your own fault -- even if it isn't.

Libertarianism...



http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/2434/snq071123lp8.gif (http://imageshack.us)

*points and laughs at the shoddy state building and constitution that resulted in a two party system*

I'm there with ya, mate. I finally get to vote and hoping that it's not Hillary vs. Rudy. If it is, I'm probably going to vote Socialist. In addition, I would demonstrate on the streets about how you don't need to vote for the lesser of the two and should vote third party if it's available and you don't like the first two. The only wasted vote is a vote not voted.

Sadly, no matter who ends up nominated, we are still going to be voting for a politician, and as the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

Giant douche or turd sandwich? Giant douche or turd sandwich?...

Social Darwinism: if you're poor, it's your own fault -- even if it isn't.

What's wrong with Social Darwinism?

What's wrong with Social Darwinism?

You mean besides its inherent cruelty and selfishness?

Giant douche or turd sandwich? Giant douche or turd sandwich?...

As Puff Daddy (or whatever he calls himself) says, "Vote or Die"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5hdvhVeT_m0

You mean besides its inherent cruelty and selfishness?

There is nothing objectionally wrong with that. Life doesn't have an inherent requirement to be nice and fair.

Besides, it works for nature. Why should it not work for Humanity?

What's wrong with Social Darwinism?

That the people who ask that question aren't the first to fall prey to it.

That the people who ask that question aren't the first to fall prey to it.

This is true. No one would argue with that.

Humans, like all creatures, desire self-preservation.

And you assume you're the only one who ever thought of that why?
And you assume this response is original every time you post it on a new thread why?

Sadly, no matter who ends up nominated, we are still going to be voting for a politician, and as the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

But you can gold plate it. :D

There is nothing objectionally wrong with that. Life doesn't have an inherent requirement to be nice and fair.

Besides, it works for nature. Why should it not work for Humanity?One would hope that humanity has evolved a social structure beyond common nature.

But you can gold plate it. :D

Then it looks good, but it still stinks.;)

"Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water. Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water. And it's looking like even stronger action will be required in the coming year."



in case you haven't noticed we only have 3 of those hundreds of millions. so what you are saying is that all of america would have died of thirst this year.
thank god for the republicans.

What's wrong with Social Darwinism?

The fact that most people who espouse it don't know what Darwin meant by "survival of the fittest".

I agree with wilgrove. I'm a Libertarian and I'm supporting Ron Paul, all I can do as in individual is volunteer/contribute/vote for him and hope that this is enough.As wilgrove points out it's never enough and the people of the US haven't had a real choice or change in policy, foreign or domestic, since 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran against LBJ. Since then, the two statist parties offer only the same solutions to all our problems-don't worry trust the government, we'll take care of everything.

Alas, it is difficult being neither left nor right in America.
www.ronpaul2008.com

if voting ever changed anything they would make it illegal


get over it

Why vote for a lesser evil?

Vote Cthulhu! (http://www.cthulhu.org/)

Ron Paul, or no one.

Ron Paul, or no one.I'll take no one.

I'll take no one.

ditto

"Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water. Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water. And it's looking like even stronger action will be required in the coming year."



in case you haven't noticed we only have 3 of those hundreds of millions. so what you are saying is that all of america would have died of thirst this year.
thank god for the republicans.

Your Math-Fu is not so strong.

First - "hundreds of millions of Americans without water" is not quite the same as "hundreds of millions of dead Americans"... so your little 'died of thirst' thing is a bit off...

Second - if two-thirds of the entire US population were to be left without water... would you say "hundreds of millions of Americans without water" would be a fair and accurate statement?

Ron Paul, or no one.

I know they say "no one would be a better candidate than" such-and-such... but in the case of Ron Paul, it's literally true... "no one" WOULD be the better candidate.

"Why? Many reasons, but, especially, this year - water. Without STRONG action by governing bodies, we'd have had hundreds of millions of Americans without water. And it's looking like even stronger action will be required in the coming year."


Don't you dare touch our fucking water. Thank god that douchebag Richardson doesn't have a shot in hell of being elected. If he were president, he would pillage the great lakes to feed the fucking westerners.

Don't you dare touch our fucking water. Thank god that douchebag Richardson doesn't have a shot in hell of being elected. If he were president, he would pillage the great lakes to feed the fucking westerners.

Not without a fight, he wouldn't. Bastards.

Not without a fight, he wouldn't. Bastards.

I just don't want to see what's happened in Georgia happen here. The feddies already raped that place enough.

I just don't want to see what's happened in Georgia happen here. The feddies already raped that place enough.

I'm afraid that after the next census the west will have enough weight in Congress to do just that.

I'm afraid that after the next census the west will have enough weight in Congress to do just that.

I hope not. It just makes me so angry when you hear from westerners and dumbfuck presidential candidates that they are somehow entitled to that water. It's like saying that us Michiganders are entitled to the copper in Wyoming or the coal in Pennsylvania.

I guess it might be time to start stockpiling the C4.

I hope not. It just makes me so angry when you hear from westerners and dumbfuck presidential candidates that they are somehow entitled to that water. It's like saying that us Michiganders are entitled to the copper in Wyoming or the coal in Pennsylvania.

I guess it might be time to start stockpiling the C4.

I hear again and again how we need to have laws in place to prevent large scale diversions, so that when the census gives our seats to the westerners they can't take our water. The thing is, if they have a really bad drought (which happens when you put millions of people in the desert) I doubt they'll care about silly things like a state's laws.

I hear again and again how we need to have laws in place to prevent large scale diversions, so that when the census gives our seats to the westerners they can't take our water. The thing is, if they have a really bad drought (which happens when you put millions of people in the desert) I doubt they'll care about silly things like a state's laws.

But what are they going to do? IIRC, the Great Lakes are not Federal property. FedGov can't just pump a bajillion gallons out of it without at least the cooperation of the states.

That, and Canada is bound to be quite upset.

But what are they going to do? IIRC, the Great Lakes are not Federal property. FedGov can't just pump a bajillion gallons out of it without at least the cooperation of the states.

If it were a bad enough situation, or politically expedient enough I have little doubt that Uncle Sam would do just that. Perhaps it's because I worked for him for four years, but I'm not what you'd call trusting.

That, and Canada is bound to be quite upset.

Since when have they cared what Canada thinks?

Not that anyone is interested in my ideas, but my rather idealistic, naive opinion is that the state governments and Canada would cooperate with the Feds because, you know, people need to drink to live.

If it were a bad enough situation, or politically expedient enough I have little doubt that Uncle Sam would do just that. Perhaps it's because I worked for him for four years, but I'm not what you'd call trusting.

It would be awefully hard just to federalize a whole mass of water, part of it claimed by another nation. It seems a little far fetched. Of course, this is Washington we're talking about.

Since when have they cared what Canada thinks?
I think Canada would put up a much larger stink about a potential draining of the Great Lakes system then over subsities or anything they've complained about before.

Cthulhu in 2008.

Why vote for the lesser evil?

Cthulhu in 2008.

Why vote for the lesser evil?

Because he would make our heads explode...and then make us rape ourselves...or something.

Not that anyone is interested in my ideas, but my rather idealistic, naive opinion is that the state governments and Canada would cooperate with the Feds because, you know, people need to drink to live.

The west has plenty of water. This isn't the Negev. They have mismanaged their most precious resource to build bigger and gaudier cities, not to mention massive, innefficient irrigation projects.

Now, they complain to the feddies that "OMG WE HAS NO WATAHS!!!!". And the feddies, being the kind beings that they are, point to the big glob o' water just to the north. And the west bitches and moans about not getting their "fair share", dispite being 1,000 miles away. Then, the feddies get lobbied by California money, and we say buh-bye to our greatest resource. It would be a disaster for the midwest.

Well, then obviously, we need to prevent them from whining to our federal government, and the best way, I'm assuming, is to prevent drought. Any good ideas, I'll admit that most of mine involve lowering the population drastically.

Because most people continue to vote for Bowl of Shit A and Bowl of Shit B.Find me a politician who isn't a Bowl of Shit.

Find me a politician who isn't a Bowl of Shit.

I think he's nice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

Well, then obviously, we need to prevent them from whining to our federal government, and the best way, I'm assuming, is to prevent drought. Any good ideas, I'll admit that most of mine involve lowering the population drastically.

Better usage of water resources. While I'm not a hydrologest, a move away from irrigation based farming into a more sustainable and climate aware model would help.

I highly doubt it because any large scale diversion like that would cause us enormous economic and environmental damage.

Well, of course, it'd have to be really bad. I mean REALLY bad. Like Hydraulic Despotism bad.

It would be awefully hard just to federalize a whole mass of water, part of it claimed by another nation. It seems a little far fetched. Of course, this is Washington we're talking about.

It is admittedly far fetched, but as you said, this is Washington we're talking about.

I think Canada would put up a much larger stink about a potential draining of the Great Lakes system then over subsities or anything they've complained about before.

I'm sure they would, but again, this is Washington we're talking about.

Not that anyone is interested in my ideas, but my rather idealistic, naive opinion is that the state governments and Canada would cooperate with the Feds because, you know, people need to drink to live.

I highly doubt it because any large scale diversion like that would cause us enormous economic and environmental damage.

Find me a politician who isn't a Bowl of Shit.

Me.

I've got to admit, most politicians remind me of a quote my grandfather often told me:

"The higher the monkey climbs up the flag poll, the more you see of its ass."

Well, of course, it'd have to be really bad. I mean REALLY bad. Like Hydraulic Despotism bad.

Like Waterworld bad?

Me.I dunno...

Like Waterworld bad?

Plan 9 From Space bad.

It is admittedly far fetched, but as you said, this is Washington we're talking about.

Aye.

I'm sure they would, but again, this is Washington we're talking about.


Double aye.


I highly doubt it because any large scale diversion like that would cause us enormous economic and environmental damage.

DoublePlusAye. Damage that would make the Aral Sea look like pond scum.

DoublePlusAye. Damage that would make the Aral Sea look like pond scum.

I gotta say, most seas look like pond scum to me. But then again, I don't like anything not out of a tap. Aren't I the dickens!

I dunno...

Really! I can lick myself without getting a disease!

Really! I can lick myself without getting a disease!

:eek: That disturbs my very core.

Really! I can lick myself without getting a disease!Well, shit is immune to shit, so there!

:eek: That disturbs my very core.Wuss.

I gotta say, most seas look like pond scum to me. But then again, I don't like anything not out of a tap. Aren't I the dickens!

The water out of a spring is just so much better then the tap. Not polluted by chlorine or Flouride. Taste that delicious sediment.

Wuss.

*Weeps softly*

Well, shit is immune to shit, so there!

Well...um... I'm not Brown, or green, or purple!

The water out of a spring is just so much better then the tap. Not polluted by chlorine or Flouride. Taste that delicious sediment.

That is precisely why I don't live in Mississippi. Well, that and the 80-foot misquitos...and the name is a bitch to spell.

That is precisely why I don't live in Mississippi. Well, that and the 80-foot misquitos...and the name is a bitch to spell.

You should come up here to Michigan. Our horseflies are the size of a cruise ship.

You should come up here to Michigan. Our horseflies are the size of a cruise ship.

No thanks, my friend. I make a point of venturing no farther north than Kenosha, WI.

Well...um... I'm not Brown, or green, or purple!Oh. Well what are you a bowl of?

No thanks, my friend. I make a point of venturing no farther north than Kenosha, WI.

That's sad. The UP is so nice this time of year.

But, back to the topic at hand (which you are all free to blatently ignore), and forgetting the environmental impact for a moment, why couldn't the federal government just overrule the states? I think the Civil War essentially killed the concept of States' Rights. Not that I'm endorsing this idea, but I do wonder why federal branch doesn't just reduce the states to what they basically already are, provinces.

Oh. Well what are you a bowl of?

Goodliness, Truthiness, and the American Way™.

Goodliness, Truthiness, and the American Way™.List all, if any, ways that that is different from shit.

But, back to the topic at hand (which you are all free to blatently ignore), and forgetting the environmental impact for a moment, why couldn't the federal government just overrule the states? I think the Civil War essentially killed the concept of States' Rights. Not that I'm endorsing this idea, but I do wonder why federal branch doesn't just reduce the states to what they basically already are, provinces.

It seems to me that the concept of States Rights has made a bit of a comeback over the past few decades. The opposition to REAL ID and the recent SC ruling on US v Lopez are some examples. People are getting very, very pissed at the federal government.


Asides, such a law federalizing the Great Lakes would be, first and formost, extremely unpopular. Secondly, it would probably be unconstitutional. For sure, it would be challenged in the Supreme Court. Thirdly, there is no precident (to my limited legal knowledge) for the federalization of a resouce previously held by the States and another government. It would be hell in a handbasket.

List all, if any, ways that that is different from shit.

1. The letters are different.

2. ...

3. Profit.

But, back to the topic at hand (which you are all free to blatently ignore), and forgetting the environmental impact for a moment, why couldn't the federal government just overrule the states? I think the Civil War essentially killed the concept of States' Rights. Not that I'm endorsing this idea, but I do wonder why federal branch doesn't just reduce the states to what they basically already are, provinces.Then it would be the United Provinces of America, which would just sound stupid. Not to mention that UPA is allot harder to confuse with USSR than USA is...

Then it would be the United Provinces of America, which would just sound stupid. Not to mention that UPA is allot harder to confuse with USSR than USA is...

UPA is already taken, I'm afraid.

It seems to me that the concept of States Rights has made a bit of a comeback over the past few decades. The opposition to REAL ID and the recent SC ruling on US v Lopez are some examples. People are getting very, very pissed at the federal government.


Asides, such a law federalizing the Great Lakes would be, first and formost, extremely unpopular. Secondly, it would probably be unconstitutional. For sure, it would be challenged in the Supreme Court. Thirdly, there is no precident (to my limited legal knowledge) for the federalization of a resouce previously held by the States and another government. It would be hell in a handbasket.

...Thanks a lot for making me look dumb.

But, to me, it would just make more sense for the vast, vast majority of the power to rest in the hands of the federal gov. We wouldn't have debates over who's resource belongs to who, who can secede from whom, and it would send a nice "F*** You" to South Carolina. I mean, it works for most other countries...I think.

To get idi....I mean people to see the truth about what our elections have really become?

Most people already know the truth about our elections, that's why they don't vote. This unfortunate response excaserbates the situation. I'm with you, vote, vote for a loser, but vote. The more people voting, regardless of who they vote for, the clearer the signal to the pols that the people are paying attention and won't stand for repeated nonsense.

...Thanks a lot for making me look dumb.

But, to me, it would just make more sense for the vast, vast majority of the power to rest in the hands of the federal gov. We wouldn't have debates over who's resource belongs to who, who can secede from whom, and it would send a nice "F*** You" to South Carolina. I mean, it works for most other countries...I think.

But, fortunately, that's not how the US is set up. We're set up as one entity in which there exists 50 internally independant entities.

A version of States Rights exists in Switzerland, and look how well that works for them.

Most people already know the truth about our elections, that's why they don't vote. This unfortunate response excaserbates the situation. I'm with you, vote, vote for a loser, but vote. The more people voting, regardless of who they vote for, the clearer the signal to the pols that the people are paying attention and won't stand for repeated nonsense.

Voter apathy is something I deeply despise, and talking to other high-schoolers in my classes reveals just how prevalent it seems to be. My only hope is that these people will grow up and actually try to change something, instead of just complaining "The government doesn't do anything for me, why should I do anything for it?"

But, fortunately, that's not how the US is set up. We're set up as one entity in which there exists 50 internally independant entities.

A version of States Rights exists in Switzerland, and look how well that works for them.

Don't forget Puerto Rico!

Don't forget Puerto Rico!

Do'h.

But I remembered something else, too. Ruling a country as diverse as the US would be very difficult from a central location. What works for one city are might not work for another.

Also, note that the largest nations usually divest much of their power in regional government. Examples: The US, Canada, India, Australia, China, Russia, and the Former Soviet Union.

Also, note that the largest nations usually divest much of their power in regional government. Examples: The US, Canada, India, Australia, China, Russia, and the Former Soviet Union.

You've got a point. My ideas of a strong federal government rest mostly on Germany...and more Germany. They're pretty small compared to us.

You've got a point. My ideas of a strong federal government rest mostly on Germany...and more Germany. They're pretty small compared to us.

Indeed they are. And they are pretty much a monocultural state, unlike the others I mentioned.