PDA

View Full Version : Government Reform: Could giving states more power be a bad thing?




TheNewYorker
12-17-2011, 01:42 PM
The only thing I'm scared about a Ron Paul presidency is returning too much power to certain states. Here, in the "Empire State", our government is overly corrupt. We have the highest taxes and least freedom in the whole country. I actually like the federal government MORE than the NYS Liberal government. Could giving New York more power be a bad thing? I mean, state rights are a good thing in theory. If you don't like your government, just move to another state. It's much more simpler than going through the long and drawn out process of moving to a whole new country. I like that idea. But in my position, I can't. I own and run a business for income. I can't just pack up and move to another state, all of my business is local.

Am I worrying too much? What are your thoughts, my friends?

Stevo_Chill
12-17-2011, 01:56 PM
easier to vote with your feet if decisions were left to the states. free states would win out be the nature of their prosperity.

Working Poor
12-17-2011, 01:58 PM
can people still vote in NY? If the state is a tyrant it is up to the people to change it.

acptulsa
12-17-2011, 01:59 PM
Am I worrying too much?

Depends upon your perspective. As a New Yorker, you have a right and a need to worry. As an Oklahoman, however, I'm inclined to say it's nothing that pulling up your roots wouldn't cure.

That said, I don't think giving the Empire State a little competition would make things any worse...

TheNewYorker
12-17-2011, 02:10 PM
I guess the plus side, is it's easier to change your government and get involved at a more local level, than it is with the Federal government. Harder with New York than other states due to the immense population, but easier than the Fed.

erowe1
12-17-2011, 02:27 PM
Giving states more power is always a bad thing. Giving states less power is always a good thing. The most powerful state is the regime in Washington, DC. And we want to give that state less power.

PierzStyx
12-17-2011, 02:28 PM
can people still vote in NY? If the state is a tyrant it is up to the people to change it.

Not always. States have used military force against the voting opposition in the past. NY already has oen of the most militant police forces in the US. I could easily see the powers that be using that against their opponents.

RabbitMan
12-17-2011, 03:18 PM
Not always. States have used military force against the voting opposition in the past. NY already has oen of the most militant police forces in the US. I could easily see the powers that be using that against their opponents.

Hence the idea that the Federal Gov't is a 'referee', in Paul's words lately, that preserves liberty rather than a force that takes it away. In this case the Feds would step in.

stephensmith
12-17-2011, 07:33 PM
Without the U.S. government running so many things, and more control being given to the states, we might see 50 "laboratories" spring up, experimenting with everything from libertarianism to possibly complete socialism. The differences would become so pronounced so quickly, with people voting with their feet and their money for the freer jurisdictions, that socialism would likely quickly collapse everywhere it was tried.

Mitt Romney
12-18-2011, 01:16 AM
I don't see this as Ron Paul GIVING the states any more power than they already have. Rather, I see him arguing that the federal government has simply taken power to itself that has always been in the state's realm. If anything, the Federal Government's increase in powers has only made corrupt states more powerful because they lean on the fed for financial support. In a true free market of states, corrupt states that subsist today would financially fail.

Now, in cases where individual states begin to abuse their powers and violate the unalienable rights of the people, I would assume there is a place for the federal government to step in. However, this is one area in which I believe the Constitution actually has a weak spot because it does not define how or when the federal government should step in, in those cases. Do they try officers before Congress to impeach and remove them from office, do they send in armed militia, or even reduce the number of representatives that can vote? Does anyone know of any comments that the founding fathers had on this issue?

LibertyEagle
12-18-2011, 01:30 AM
Without the U.S. government running so many things, and more control being given to the states, we might see 50 "laboratories" spring up, experimenting with everything from libertarianism to possibly complete socialism. The differences would become so pronounced so quickly, with people voting with their feet and their money for the freer jurisdictions, that socialism would likely quickly collapse everywhere it was tried.

Don't we already have a close enough example with California? :p

mwkaufman
12-18-2011, 01:44 AM
States' rights isn't about giving states power. It's about the Constitution restricting the federal government from those powers. Should the states be careful or perhaps not even wield that power at all? In many cases absolutely. The Constitution is merely the terms by which states have agreed to cede some of their sovereignty. And part of the deal was, the federal government doesn't get to do stuff like mandate healthcare insurance without a Constitutional amendment.