complord said:

Large masses of angry people on the brink of violence. The offer they can't refuse is that either they fix it or they have a bunch of motivated angry people ready to lynch them... not that I'm advocating violence... but even Ghandi had that threat since he was the only one holding his followers back.

Artaban isn't ridiculous he is bigoted and intellectually dishonest. There is an enormous difference. If he was saying what he was saying from a position of ignorance or a poor attempt at humor I'd agree with you. But all evidence shows he has thought about his positions, has looked up various sources to back them up (ignoring everything that does not support his narrow view), and chooses to be both insulting and obtuse. It was the reason I stopped trying to talk to him about Socialism. He would not provide any backing to his definition of it and would decry anything that was not his own. Then he started in with the ad hominem attacks and implications about my character and beliefs.

You can't have a conversation with someone who is there only to present their material or make outrageous statements. As Rep. Frank so eloquently put it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8.

In an ideal world states rights would work. I can vouch for the fact that it doesn't go so well in Australia.

Education at a state level functions poorly - the different curriculums & approaches to education mean that institutions & diplomas are not consistent between states. Makes it harder for people who move interstate, and businesses & universities have trouble with comparing graduates.

Environmentally it doesn't really work that well - exploitative practices in one state can drastically affect neighbouring states while denying those states the revenue that the development in question would have generated. Eg - the Murry Darling river is one of our largest agricultural flows. It runs through multiple states, & the excessive exploitation of the river at its source means that the flow to downriver states has been diminishing for years, badly affecting the agriculture in the downriver states. The more outflung parts of the river are amost destroyed, and it hasn't been saved because one state (which draws more than its share) keeps obstructing a co-ordinated plan to ration the water.

The idea of states as melting pots of innovation is fine in theory but not practice. The states aren't breeding grounds for innovation because every state government is controlled by the same two big parties. The state governments aren't really any closer to local communities than the national government (... there's no particular reason why they would be, if you think about it). There isn't really a flow of successful ideas between the states for various reasons, including political rivalry (even within the same parties)... but there's endless potential for obstructive states to prevent attempts to employ policies that originated in other states.

At the same time, practices that some might see as undesirable (like free abortion, or gay marriage) are effectively legal in all states if one state enables them, since people can just travel to get what they want.

If you want community government the best shot is probably to abolish states. Have small, regional councils & a national government to handle the overarching stuff. An ideal healthcare system would probably have national baselines & minimum standards in place while leaving the individual hospitals with maximum leeway to conduct themselves according to the individual needs of their local communities. Best practice would be more easily shared once the political barriers imposed by squabbling state governments are gone.

Universal healthcare is relatively successful in Australia - our leftwing party (Labor) set it up; the right-wing party (Liberals) subsequently provided tax breaks for people who choose private insurance in order to promote competition & take some of the burden off public hospitals. It's quite a successful model of UHC that both sides of politics now accept. (It would have worked better had it been consistently run at a national level rather than by individual states, though).

You also have to remember that the first incarnation of our country was a confederation of states that resembled what the South was trying to establish during the Civil War. The Articles of Confederation was the United States first foray into making a government and it failed horribly because it gave states all the power and the federal government was very weak. If anything happened across state lines nothing could be done because each state was sovereign and the federal government didn't have the power to create a military. This is the ideal country the founding fathers wanted.

The point of all that is obviously that is not what governments look like today so going back to the Founding Fathers for advice on how to deal with any modern problems is ludicrous at best. It's the same thing as what would Jesus do except a bit more reasonable but just as misguided. The Founding Fathers created the Constitution to be purposely open ended because they knew there would be problems they didn't think of. That flexibility should also be lent to the government so it can actually take care of problems, like health care, without being hamstrung by the founding document.

Also, I don't think armed revolt is necessary for logical health care reform. That kind of tactic is usually used if the government isn't doing its job overall or is oppressive.

Stag Lord said:

Agreed

Stag Lord said:

Strongly disagree regarding the democrats support. Just a reminder for everyone that the obstructionism of the democrats in filling federal judiciary posts was unprecedented in American history - they wouldn't even allow nominated appointees to come up for vostes, & numerous posts were not filled. Furthermore, one of Bush's promises was Social Security reform - & that was met strongly opposed by democrats.

Stag Lord said:

I'd argue that Health care affects every American as much as social security does. IMO, those two issues have had similar parallels (in that the older voters are key voting blocks to sway). Some are suggesting that the Republicans are targeting that demographic with scare tactics - which is pretty much exactly what the democrats did & do every time social security reform comes up.

Anyway - regarding the original topic regarding the expanding power of government - I believe that both parties are pushing and expanded federal government, and I am greatly concerned by this

CaseyVa said:

(Numbers in the above quote inserted by me for the purposes of easing response).

1. Not true. Many people (from myself to conservative commentators) were critical of Bush and the Republicans for their expansion of federal power during their run. While it may be true to say it seems to be more of a concern when Democrats are in power, it would be factually erroneous to claim that it has not been raised repeatedly and publicly under Republicans.

2. I've stated before my belief that the government should never have gotten into the marriage business in the first place--no matter what type of marriage we're talking about. Let individual religious denominations choose who to marry, and if some churches choose to marry homosexuals, I'm not going to get involved. ~Yes, this position is SOOO bigoted . How dare I say I'm not going to get involved/oppose it if Episcopalians choose to marry homosexuals.

I have a deep problem, however, when a government starts fining a denomination for even voicing their beliefs on the issue (as has been done in Canada), and when some go so far as to agitate that a priest/minister CAN BE FORCED to marry two particular people, no matter their faith's teaching or conscience's dictates. ~How dare I oppose the principle of violating someone's conscience rights, and making them a slave. It's just so bigotted of me (sigh).

3. On the "Marxist pamphlet" claim, I'm assuming you're referring to the Pauline demand that "those who do not work should not eat."

FYI, thanks for the encouragement--it's always good to know when one has irritated irrational people .

1. Well, you were definitely in the minority since conservatives couldn't rave enough about two wars and the Patriot Act.

2. You make no sense. First you are saying the government should defend marriage the way it is then the next you are saying they shouldn't get involved. Also, nobody is forcing churches to marry people. There are Catholic churches that won't marry divorced people and the Mormon church won't do interracial marriages in some instances for example. All we are asking is that same sex marriages be treated the same as opposite sex marriages when it comes to the law. I'm pretty sure LBGT could care less about your religious objections.

3. What does communism have to do about not working? If I remember correctly there was 100% employment in the USSR and its satellite countries. Also, Marxist philosophy, before it got corrupted by Leninism and Stalinism, is about community based government which communism hardly is.