3 ms·

It's interesting though that the power of the states has dropped to such a low level that we rely on the federal government to implement the larger changes. Ma

It's interesting though that the power of the states has dropped to such a low level that we rely on the federal government to implement the larger changes. Many states have been taken over by handcuffs of strict tax limitations (which is why california is screwed, and my own colorado is screwed to a lesser degree). Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I'd say that the super-limited federal government only worked when states had a counterbalancing ability to get things done. I'm not sure why states power has fallen to so low a level (popularly elected senate, ability for citizens to push through restrictive state constitution amendments, massing of federal money that forces policy decisions [like highways & drinking age].... etc).

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I agree with your idea that experimentation at the state level before attempting something federally would be far superior. But I disagree that States can't do so now. Certainly where I live now (New Jersey) there's nothing limiting local experimentation into healthcare (certainly not a strict tax limitation!!). Frankly, I think the problem is that those proposing such measures can't stand to see anyone try a different approach (or none at all). In their righteousness, they convince themselves that their idea is the only correct one, and thus everyone must be forced to "benefit" from it. I wish I knew what happened to the philosophy of letting each person live the kind of life they want, without having to be subject to the values of someone else.
- cschneid 17y ago
  The kind of laws I'm referring to are like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights Basically, it limits the ability to tax, so a new program (say, single payer health care for the state), that would require a tax, requires massive public approval. Which stops progress as much as the federal government gridlock. Your last line betrays some of your political leanings. In my view there are two major competing ideals of government. There's your "live & let live" ideal, and there's the "we're in this together" ideal. Neither is wrong, and both have a pretty strong argument behind them. But it leads to totally different policy decisions that are at odds. So yeah, that's what happened to it, there's a competing ideal.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    OK, I'll accept that criticism. It's clear that we have different outlooks, and while I disagree strongly with yours, I understand that there is a legitimate philosophy that leads to it. Best, then, to take our heads out of the sand and address the divide directly. Otherwise we will have the same conflicts over every issue, arguing over surface details without ever really resolving anything, all the while building more and more acrimony.

CWuestefeld 17y ago

Really, the Massachusetts method of state-by-state decisions, then coalesced into national policy when it's been proven and has wide support is a good method to go with. But states can't do that now. I agree with your idea that experimentation at the state level before attempting something federally would be far superior. But I disagree that States can't do so now. Certainly where I live now (New Jersey) there's nothing limiting local experimentation into healthcare (certainly not a strict tax limitation!!). Frankly, I think the problem is that those proposing such measures can't stand to see anyone try a different approach (or none at all). In their righteousness, they convince themselves that their idea is the only correct one, and thus everyone must be forced to "benefit" from it. I wish I knew what happened to the philosophy of letting each person live the kind of life they want, without having to be subject to the values of someone else.

cschneid 17y ago
The kind of laws I'm referring to are like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights Basically, it limits the ability to tax, so a new program (say, single payer health care for the state), that would require a tax, requires massive public approval. Which stops progress as much as the federal government gridlock. Your last line betrays some of your political leanings. In my view there are two major competing ideals of government. There's your "live & let live" ideal, and there's the "we're in this together" ideal. Neither is wrong, and both have a pretty strong argument behind them. But it leads to totally different policy decisions that are at odds. So yeah, that's what happened to it, there's a competing ideal.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  OK, I'll accept that criticism. It's clear that we have different outlooks, and while I disagree strongly with yours, I understand that there is a legitimate philosophy that leads to it. Best, then, to take our heads out of the sand and address the divide directly. Otherwise we will have the same conflicts over every issue, arguing over surface details without ever really resolving anything, all the while building more and more acrimony.