economics102
04-06-2013, 09:00 PM
Just thought I'd share this, I've been refining this argument over time and have found it somewhat effective.
Let's say you're debating with someone who doesn't see the point of federalism and thinks the current top-heavy government makes total sense. Here's some questions I ask in response:
1. Should we perhaps just get rid of state governments entirely? If the federal government represents the people, and each "state" has regional representatives in the House and Senate, why do we need these parallel state governments to clash with it?
2. If an all-powerful federal government is superior to a federalist system where states have some/most of the power, would not a world government be even more superior and more just? Should we have a world government, in which we will have representatives appointed, and abolish the sovereign United States government?
This of course leads to discussions about sovereignty, representation, etc.
I take a similar approach on the subject of welfare. I ask:
1. My local neighbors live like kings compared to the people in Somalia, yet our government wants to send them EVEN MORE welfare aid. Why are they more deserving than the children in Somalia who are literally eating mud pies and dying of dysintery?
The above question may lead into a debate over the superficiality of "local neighbors" and nationalism, or the inability of a central government to make an objective decision about who most deserves welfare, etc.
Obviously you can go on and on with these types of questions. The point is to show that, these same peopel who scoff at the idea of empowering the states vs. the federal government, tend to also scoff at the idea of a world government, and if you present the right questions to them, you'll be able to demonstrate that their objections to empowering a world government at the expense of the federal are the same objections we have for doing the same thing to the federal vs. the states. This allows us to point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of their argument and question whether perhaps ALL decentralization of power is good.
Let's say you're debating with someone who doesn't see the point of federalism and thinks the current top-heavy government makes total sense. Here's some questions I ask in response:
1. Should we perhaps just get rid of state governments entirely? If the federal government represents the people, and each "state" has regional representatives in the House and Senate, why do we need these parallel state governments to clash with it?
2. If an all-powerful federal government is superior to a federalist system where states have some/most of the power, would not a world government be even more superior and more just? Should we have a world government, in which we will have representatives appointed, and abolish the sovereign United States government?
This of course leads to discussions about sovereignty, representation, etc.
I take a similar approach on the subject of welfare. I ask:
1. My local neighbors live like kings compared to the people in Somalia, yet our government wants to send them EVEN MORE welfare aid. Why are they more deserving than the children in Somalia who are literally eating mud pies and dying of dysintery?
The above question may lead into a debate over the superficiality of "local neighbors" and nationalism, or the inability of a central government to make an objective decision about who most deserves welfare, etc.
Obviously you can go on and on with these types of questions. The point is to show that, these same peopel who scoff at the idea of empowering the states vs. the federal government, tend to also scoff at the idea of a world government, and if you present the right questions to them, you'll be able to demonstrate that their objections to empowering a world government at the expense of the federal are the same objections we have for doing the same thing to the federal vs. the states. This allows us to point out the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of their argument and question whether perhaps ALL decentralization of power is good.