7 ms·

I see the fundamental issue here. You are looking at from a perspective of what the government should be doing for you, where I do not believe the government s

• cycomanic 5y ago
  Leaving aside the discussion on infrastructure, you say that vaccine mandates are a "HUGE issue" and use that as evidence for expansion of government power. How about conscription? I would argue forcing people to join an armed conflict is a much bigger transgression on your freedom than a vaccine mandate, would you not? And conscription has not been used by the government since Vietnam. > Roads at best should be a Local and State government issue not Federal Government. The fact that the federal government as taken over that function is an example of Expansion of government power. Why? Local government can just as much restrict your individual freedoms (and arguably do) as federal government. I for example very much prefer a federal government building bridges than a local government that tells me what color my house can be or when I can or can't put out christmas decoration. I think both you and the OP are correct in some way. I would argue, the government has expanded their power (the primary example being surveillance capabilities), on the other hand I also agree with the previous poster, government seems to have much less power to act against large corporations. I think both you and and the OP are correct on. I think we have seen governments expand
  • syshum 5y ago
    >>How about conscription? I would argue forcing people to join an armed conflict is a much bigger transgression on your freedom than a vaccine mandate, would you not? First and foremost just because government has not used its power of conscription does not mean it has relinquished said power, in fact it has also expanded that power recently where by Women will not be required to sign up for the daft, aka selective service. Failure to do so has many penalties attached to it. So this also fails the test on if government is weaker today then since WWII. Further still even if the selective service was abolished I am not sure that eliminates the idea of conscription given that most of the military is made up of men and women who "choose" that path in life based on economic conditions impart created by governments monetary manipulation beginning in the 1970's [1] >>Local government can just as much restrict your individual freedoms (and arguably do) as federal government. While this is true, it is much much much easier to escape oppressive or non-functional local governments than it is to escape federal governments. This is why unpopular laws are often attempted at the federal level because if done at a local or state level people and businesses will just move to a new state or city to escape them, we see this all the time. So I completely acknowledge that a local government could become just as if not more authoritarian as the federal government but that would still be preferred over a totalitarian nation state. It is far easier to move from California to Texas than it is to move from the US to Europe, or Europe to the US. [1]https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• thrashh 5y ago
  If I pay someone, I want them to do something for me. Simple as that. You may be fine giving away money but I’m not. And as someone already said, local government is still government. Both are government. Both are weaker than before. And I’m still paying both.
• lazyhummingbird 5y ago
  I am pro-vaccination, but agree that vaccine mandates, anti-abortion laws, and other mandates that interfere with bodily autonomy are a violation of fundamental human rights. On the other hand, most of the ensuing consequences are not a violation of rights, but rather a natural result of any choice that puts others at risk. Those who are anti-vax for any preventable, deadly disease choose their individual freedom over their community's safety. Such is their right. In turn, it is the right of the community to protect itself against the risk these people introduce. Anyone may drive their car without a seatbelt on your property, but if they wish to use public roads, they must sacrifice a little bit of individual freedom and wear one. I can see some logic behind wanting roads to be Local and State responsibilities. It would increase the freedom of individual taxpayers. This might result in a net increase in freedom, despite all the inevitable tolls, unstandardized roadways, and stymied arguments between states over who must pay to restore that crumbling interstate bridge. The economic burden would lift off of the taxpayer's shoulders and fall back on the business or person who uses the roads the most, especially those businesses which have profited from being able to cross state lines efficiently –not something most local folks care to encourage through a federal subsidy anyways. Perhaps the framers of the constitution went too far when they suggested that Congress should be able to tax to, "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...to regulate commerce among the several states...to establish post offices and post roads." Most people don't need packages to go straight to their house anyways! The same goes for public schools, better referred to as the only school a poor person can afford to attend. Communities should be allowed But one thing is for sure. If public schools exist as the only option for most of their students, two things are true. First, they cannot stop attendees from being smokers or anti-vaxxers out in the world. Second, they absolutely must restrict these individuals from introducing deadly risks into the classroom. This is best solved at the State and Local level, but in some cases. These should never be penalties and restrictions against refusal, but instead protections for the community against the resultant risk. It is for the State and Local government to decide how much they accommodate risk-promoting individuals. For example, many schools are providing separate instruction for anti-vaxxers. Good for those emburdened taxpayers, deciding to help the selfish among them!
  • syshum 5y ago
• amznthrwaway 5y ago
  [dead]
• Apocryphon 5y ago
  > Roads at best should be a Local and State government issue not Federal Government. The fact that the federal government as taken over that function is an example of Expansion of government power. But that still means the issue is insufficient government strength, though right? Simply at the local and state level rather than the federal level. Perhaps you can reframe it then as a power misallocation, but it still means some government is not powerful enough to get things done.
  • syshum 5y ago
    Nationwide roads are not bad. There are some states that are worse than others for the roads. Most of the big stories however have been about Interstate system bridges which are funded by mostly an 18.4c per gallon tax on gas and a commercial tax on diesel for trucks. The federal government massively under funds the federal highway system. That said, Road maintenance is not a government power issue. Road Construction might be if they need to seize land. The calling out of roads is a red herring, Road account for a infinitesimal part of the budget, even the so called "build back better" plan has very very very little money in it for roads and bridges (about 3% of the spending) To focus on that as an example of government being weak is ridiculous and completely miss understands the role and scope of government in the lives of everyday people. If the government privatized all the roads would people that support this argument then claim we are in an stateless society because the government no longer builds the roads... We can agree that the government is terrible at maintaining roads, however I do not view that as an example of government weakening, it is an example of government incompetence. Incompetence is universal and all encompassing for all government programs