3 ms·

>>how do you plan to deal with the continuation of government Federalism. The Federal Government does far too much and most of its function should be left to

>>how do you plan to deal with the continuation of government Federalism. The Federal Government does far too much and most of its function should be left to State and Local governments. >>and nuclear weapon problem? MAD is a terrible strategy, and I dont think our Nuclear weapons serve the function many believe they do.

beebmam 4y ago
If the federal government should be reduced in power, then why should state or local governments have any more power over individuals?
- sobkas 4y ago
  > If the federal government should be reduced in power, then why should state or local governments have any more power over individuals? Because the smaller government is (federal>state>local) the resources needed to hollow it out and made into puppet also drop.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mulmen 4y ago
  Because I have more power as a voter and constituent to influence policies that affect me. At a national level I am 1 of 331,900,000. At a state level I am 1 of 7,739,000. At a county level I am one of 2,252,000. At a city level I am one of 733,919. At a neighborhood level I am one of 82,123. I have four orders of magnitude more influence over my city council rep than I do over my president.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    > Because I have more power as a voter and constituent to influence policies that affect me. If only things actually worked that way. The vast majority of voters don't exercise that power. Moreover, state and local governments are more vulnerable to capture by rent-seekers and other special-interest groups bent on shaping public policy to suit their desires.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      That's not an inherent state of affairs, though. We've been consciously pushing as much of our politics to the federal level as possible, from both left and right, for several decades now. Why is it a surprise then that voters don't engage much with local governments? After all, even if they do it, the states and the feds tend to override if it's an important "wedge issue" (i.e. the voters have been riled up about it) on the higher level.
    - seb1204 4y ago
      They should and education and empowering is needed, globally. Democracy in all forms and colours needs participation. The minimum level of participation is to vote in all occasions.
      - dctoedt 4y ago
        > They should and education and empowering is needed, globally. ... The minimum level of participation is to vote in all occasions. 1. It'd be great to use the Australian system of compulsory voting (and it's kind of a community event, from what I've read). But that's not likely to happen in the U.S., because certain segments of the political spectrum don't want "the wrong sort of people" to vote, and so when they gain power they make it as difficult to vote as they can get away with. 2. "Education and empowerment" has worked so well in other areas of life — among other successes, absolutely no one smokes tobacco anymore; everyone drives carefully and soberly while obeying all posted speed limits; everyone eats healthy foods in moderation to maintain an appropriate weight; etc. (Not.) And that's why in the tech world, for example, everyone takes the time to properly document their code, thoroughly test every release, refactor when appropriate, and clear away technical debt. (Again, not.) And in medicine, doctors never misdiagnose illnesses or forget important steps in treatment because they always use authoritative best-practices checklists, which the medical establishment works hard to keep up to date and quickly disseminate to practitioners. (Yep, not.) Apropos of that last example: Remember the crash of the FAA's Notice to Air Missions [NOTAM] system last week? That's a federal system; 50 state systems would be unworkable. While we're on the subject of NOTAMs, here's a thought experiment: Imagine that the NOTAM system were somehow to be privatized — investor pressure for growth to boost the stock price would eventually and inevitably lead to dangerous corner-cutting and underinvestment. 3. Bottom line: Every human being is a mixed bag: We're created co-creators helping to build a universe, but we can also be short-sighted and narrowly focused on what we want without regard to how it might hurt others. All this can lead to stupid decisions — or malign ones — which we're great at rationalizing. So: Our political structures and laws need to deal with humans as we are, not as we wish we were.
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    So what? Does that stop corruption in your city? (hint: The answer is 'No") Or even abuses? (hint: The answer is "No") In its final days, even slavery was a "more local" policy. People should get their mindsets right on democratic vigilance. The problem is not ceding decision making to the federal government. The problem is ceding decision making to any government. That's why we need to not only be able to remove people from power, but actually do so from time to time. So that every one from the local sheriff and judge, all the way up to the president and chief justice never get too comfy.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    > I have four orders of magnitude more influence over my city council rep than I do over my president. And yet you need the federal government to defend your right to select which state to live in if you decide that you want to move https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe Believe it or not, the current situation yields tons of power to your state, just not powers that involve anything outside of the state (wars, interstate commerce, etc)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
xamolxix 4y ago
>> MAD is a terrible strategy What is a better strategy? >> and I dont think our Nuclear weapons serve the function many believe they do. What function do you believe many believe they serve, and what function do you believe they actually serve?
LarryMullins 4y ago
What, besides MAD, has prevented Putin from using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine? inb4 "they don't work anymore", Russia has a mature nuclear industry and huge stockpiles of nuclear material. They're more than capable of making nuclear bombs which work.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  The risk of further global isolation and the loss of any military restraint from NATO. I could foresee a wide range of of responses to Russia using a nuke in Ukraine. I highly doubt the US would respond by dropping a nuke on Russia. That just wouldn't accomplish anything useful.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > the loss of any military restraint from NATO. MAD. And what is it that presently restrains NATO? MAD.
  - sgjohnson 4y ago
    > I highly doubt the US would respond by dropping a nuke on Russia. That just wouldn't accomplish anything useful. And you’re probably right—it wouldn’t achieve anything useful. What I’d expect is the first gulf war all over again. Some good 2 months of non-stop relentless air campaign with surgical strikes, and boots on the ground for the final phase. And a dismembered, completely dysfuncional Russia wrapped into endless internal conflicts between the constituent republics at the end.
dctoedt 4y ago
> The Federal Government does far too much and most of its function should be left to State and Local governments. Except that state and local governments are more vulnerable to capture by rent-seekers and other special-interest groups bent on shaping public policy to suit their desires.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Aside from that not actually being true. To the extent it is, the impact of that is far less than when Large Multi-National corporations use comparatively less money to capture the federal government. This idea that Federal Government is opposition to rent seeking is laughably absurd given the context of the last 50+ years where ever single omnibus spending bill that is passed is littered with pork to rent seekers. As Joe Biden says.... Come On Man....
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    I certainly don't dispute that the federal government is vulnerable to regulatory capture by rent-seekers. But if you imagine that state- and local governments are any different, you must live in a laudably-different place than do most of us.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      I dont imagine them to be different, I imagine 1. A Single vote in a smaller political division carries more weight than being diluted in a large nation like the US at the national level. 2. If the local rent seeking becomes too harmful it is far less costly to relocate to a new City, County, or State than it is to immigrate to a new nation 3. It is infinitely more costly for a large corporation to rent seek thousands of cities / counts, and/or 50 US States, than it is for them to rent seek 1 federal government. I could add probably 5 more things. IMO Federalism is a more desirable system of governance, and provides ways to limit the damage the inevitable corruption can cause.
      - jen20 4y ago
themadturk 4y ago
> MAD is a terrible strategy Terrible, but it has worked so far.
sgjohnson 4y ago
> MAD is a terrible strategy, and I dont think our Nuclear weapons serve the function many believe they do. What do you propose as an alternative? Mutual disarmament? Once you have nuclear weapons, there’s no reason whatsoever to EVER give them up.

beebmam 4y ago

If the federal government should be reduced in power, then why should state or local governments have any more power over individuals?

sobkas 4y ago
> If the federal government should be reduced in power, then why should state or local governments have any more power over individuals? Because the smaller government is (federal>state>local) the resources needed to hollow it out and made into puppet also drop.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mulmen 4y ago
Because I have more power as a voter and constituent to influence policies that affect me. At a national level I am 1 of 331,900,000. At a state level I am 1 of 7,739,000. At a county level I am one of 2,252,000. At a city level I am one of 733,919. At a neighborhood level I am one of 82,123. I have four orders of magnitude more influence over my city council rep than I do over my president.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  > Because I have more power as a voter and constituent to influence policies that affect me. If only things actually worked that way. The vast majority of voters don't exercise that power. Moreover, state and local governments are more vulnerable to capture by rent-seekers and other special-interest groups bent on shaping public policy to suit their desires.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    That's not an inherent state of affairs, though. We've been consciously pushing as much of our politics to the federal level as possible, from both left and right, for several decades now. Why is it a surprise then that voters don't engage much with local governments? After all, even if they do it, the states and the feds tend to override if it's an important "wedge issue" (i.e. the voters have been riled up about it) on the higher level.
  - seb1204 4y ago
    They should and education and empowering is needed, globally. Democracy in all forms and colours needs participation. The minimum level of participation is to vote in all occasions.
    - dctoedt 4y ago
      > They should and education and empowering is needed, globally. ... The minimum level of participation is to vote in all occasions. 1. It'd be great to use the Australian system of compulsory voting (and it's kind of a community event, from what I've read). But that's not likely to happen in the U.S., because certain segments of the political spectrum don't want "the wrong sort of people" to vote, and so when they gain power they make it as difficult to vote as they can get away with. 2. "Education and empowerment" has worked so well in other areas of life — among other successes, absolutely no one smokes tobacco anymore; everyone drives carefully and soberly while obeying all posted speed limits; everyone eats healthy foods in moderation to maintain an appropriate weight; etc. (Not.) And that's why in the tech world, for example, everyone takes the time to properly document their code, thoroughly test every release, refactor when appropriate, and clear away technical debt. (Again, not.) And in medicine, doctors never misdiagnose illnesses or forget important steps in treatment because they always use authoritative best-practices checklists, which the medical establishment works hard to keep up to date and quickly disseminate to practitioners. (Yep, not.) Apropos of that last example: Remember the crash of the FAA's Notice to Air Missions [NOTAM] system last week? That's a federal system; 50 state systems would be unworkable. While we're on the subject of NOTAMs, here's a thought experiment: Imagine that the NOTAM system were somehow to be privatized — investor pressure for growth to boost the stock price would eventually and inevitably lead to dangerous corner-cutting and underinvestment. 3. Bottom line: Every human being is a mixed bag: We're created co-creators helping to build a universe, but we can also be short-sighted and narrowly focused on what we want without regard to how it might hurt others. All this can lead to stupid decisions — or malign ones — which we're great at rationalizing. So: Our political structures and laws need to deal with humans as we are, not as we wish we were.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  So what? Does that stop corruption in your city? (hint: The answer is 'No") Or even abuses? (hint: The answer is "No") In its final days, even slavery was a "more local" policy. People should get their mindsets right on democratic vigilance. The problem is not ceding decision making to the federal government. The problem is ceding decision making to any government. That's why we need to not only be able to remove people from power, but actually do so from time to time. So that every one from the local sheriff and judge, all the way up to the president and chief justice never get too comfy.
- judge2020 4y ago
  > I have four orders of magnitude more influence over my city council rep than I do over my president. And yet you need the federal government to defend your right to select which state to live in if you decide that you want to move https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe Believe it or not, the current situation yields tons of power to your state, just not powers that involve anything outside of the state (wars, interstate commerce, etc)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

xamolxix 4y ago

>> MAD is a terrible strategy What is a better strategy? >> and I dont think our Nuclear weapons serve the function many believe they do. What function do you believe many believe they serve, and what function do you believe they actually serve?

LarryMullins 4y ago

What, besides MAD, has prevented Putin from using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine? inb4 "they don't work anymore", Russia has a mature nuclear industry and huge stockpiles of nuclear material. They're more than capable of making nuclear bombs which work.

shkkmo 4y ago
The risk of further global isolation and the loss of any military restraint from NATO. I could foresee a wide range of of responses to Russia using a nuke in Ukraine. I highly doubt the US would respond by dropping a nuke on Russia. That just wouldn't accomplish anything useful.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  > the loss of any military restraint from NATO. MAD. And what is it that presently restrains NATO? MAD.
- sgjohnson 4y ago
  > I highly doubt the US would respond by dropping a nuke on Russia. That just wouldn't accomplish anything useful. And you’re probably right—it wouldn’t achieve anything useful. What I’d expect is the first gulf war all over again. Some good 2 months of non-stop relentless air campaign with surgical strikes, and boots on the ground for the final phase. And a dismembered, completely dysfuncional Russia wrapped into endless internal conflicts between the constituent republics at the end.

dctoedt 4y ago

> The Federal Government does far too much and most of its function should be left to State and Local governments. Except that state and local governments are more vulnerable to capture by rent-seekers and other special-interest groups bent on shaping public policy to suit their desires.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Aside from that not actually being true. To the extent it is, the impact of that is far less than when Large Multi-National corporations use comparatively less money to capture the federal government. This idea that Federal Government is opposition to rent seeking is laughably absurd given the context of the last 50+ years where ever single omnibus spending bill that is passed is littered with pork to rent seekers. As Joe Biden says.... Come On Man....
- dctoedt 4y ago
  I certainly don't dispute that the federal government is vulnerable to regulatory capture by rent-seekers. But if you imagine that state- and local governments are any different, you must live in a laudably-different place than do most of us.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I dont imagine them to be different, I imagine 1. A Single vote in a smaller political division carries more weight than being diluted in a large nation like the US at the national level. 2. If the local rent seeking becomes too harmful it is far less costly to relocate to a new City, County, or State than it is to immigrate to a new nation 3. It is infinitely more costly for a large corporation to rent seek thousands of cities / counts, and/or 50 US States, than it is for them to rent seek 1 federal government. I could add probably 5 more things. IMO Federalism is a more desirable system of governance, and provides ways to limit the damage the inevitable corruption can cause.
    - jen20 4y ago

themadturk 4y ago

> MAD is a terrible strategy Terrible, but it has worked so far.

sgjohnson 4y ago

> MAD is a terrible strategy, and I dont think our Nuclear weapons serve the function many believe they do. What do you propose as an alternative? Mutual disarmament? Once you have nuclear weapons, there’s no reason whatsoever to EVER give them up.