JazzB1987 said:
rocketpig said:
JazzB1987 said:
WRONG. You need to be a big country (USA) to have influence in the world. You have to team up to do something like having a strong economy etc.. Try to grow vegetables in manhatten please. See? Thats the point of the USA. Not I SAY YOU DO!. Thats also why the european union was established. Because 1000000 small countries cannot compete with the Russian Federation or the United States etc.
The only laws that should be forced to be complied with are laws that TOTALLY concern the whole united states like what kind of pesticides are allowd to grow food that is sold in the whole country ETC. What pesticides are allowed to be used to sell food in the state of its origin is a matter of the STATE not FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Do you finally see what i mean?
To bad the government is violating the rules of the constitution/bill of rights etc but you seem to only see what you want to see so there is no point in talking about this topic anymore.
|
Yes, I'm the one who's only seeing what I want.
Do everyone here a favor and Google "Articles of Confederation". Read the wiki article and then you'll understand why your idea is a terrible one. Your idea of a toothless Federal government being a good thing is what almost buried this country in the 1780s.
|
Another example. Idiots came up with the Idea of internet data preservation. This is actually violating laws and is on the same level as domestic disturbance.
The European government is FORCING its member states to accept this law. The EU is suing Germany for this because Germany is hesitating to accept it and wants Germany to pay
$391,053 for each day the law is not active.
Why is the EU interfering with German laws? The only courts that have to deal with all the stuff are the German courts be it copyright infrigment or pedophiles or whatever. Why does the EU have to be so agressive? Germans dont want this stupid law so the German government has not yet signed it.
IF the mayority of a states people want or dont want something THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
THIS IS DEMOCRACY FOR GODS SAKE. Be it death sentence, age of consent, making homo sexuality illegal or whatever.... it does not matter how stupid the law might be. IF THE PEOPLE WANT IT THEY SHOULD GET IT AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE.
If you can read you would notice that I suggested a better form of government.
Neither "F*CK the federal government we do what we want" nor "who cares about what people want we force them to accept"
but instead let the federal government (that still has a lets say 40% vote power) suggest laws and convince the people who the law would affect and then if enough people see that the law is usefull VOILA! Law accepted.
I mean what if the federal government would force every state to throw white people into jail? Or make it illegal for specific people to procreate? Or kick females out of any sort of school/university etc like 400 years ago?
Don't you think NewYork or any other state should have the right to fight this stupud law? You don't get my point i guess.
P.S.
Please remember im not trying to make this happen/trying to start a revolution or whatever Im trying to show you that you rant about this IDEA for no reason because its not worse than what we have now. It could actually be better because the POWER TO DECIDE lies more in your hands than when the federal government can decide everything on its own.
I said you only see what you want to see because you don't get the WHOLE point if this IDEA. You just think about anarchy or whatever and all people turning into barabrians etc? But thats just one side of the medal.
I see both sides (yeah i really do) but I only talk about the side you don't see because you clearly know of the other side so there is not much of a point in talking about that one too.
My whole text is not intended to turn this conversation into a PRO CONTRA debate its just showing flaws in your view. Well sorry that sounds harsh lets say its adding info for better understanding of the issue.
This is also going to be the last post on my side. I said what I wanted to say and I hope you at least understand what I want to say you don't have to accept it because.... well democracy stuff you know. Have a nice weekend.
|
Wait, so you're advocating an EU-style model for the US while using examples of how the EU is failing its member countries?
I get your point. I'm pretty sure I "get it" more than you do. I'm all about states' rights, ask anyone on the forum who has debated politics with me over the past five years.
But it's a fine-edged sword. While states should have increased rights, they cannot be allowed to do whatever they please. And that's not me just saying it won't work hypothetically because it was done in the late 1770s and early 1780s. States printed their own money. They gave/didn't give whatever money they felt like to the federal government. They had influence in how the federal government used the military. They had influence in how we set tariffs and trade regulations. It failed so miserably that the country almost collapsed in less than a decade.
Now, look at the EU. This time, they're using a slightly more unified model, with the EU itself printing money, forcing some regulations onto its member nations, but still keeping the sovereignty of its member states. The added benefit of the EU is that its member states have long-running histories of being successful, profitable nations with stable governments. That should help, right? Well, if you're a net exporter like Germany, sure. It works great! If you're a net importer like Greece, not so much. Their country is on the verge of economic collapse and austerity measures are being taken on a level I don't think I've seen from a western nation in my lifetime and the reason it's happening is basically because they joined the EU and adopted the Euro for their currency.
I get your point. I understand it fully, more fully than you do. It's a terrible idea that has been tried in the past and to my knowledge, has failed on pretty much every level. You don't have any evidence that it's a good idea, you just like the sound of it. Yet I provide examples where such a loose-knit republic has failed its constituency and you just ignore it.
