Posted: 8/19/2009 4:48:55 AM EDT
| I came to the conclusion recently that the best way to describe my political leanings is Federalist. How many of you guys (and gals) would actually vote for a Federalist party? Someone who didn't just use the name but actually was working towards the values that the name confers. |
|
Quoted:
Libertarians and Federalists are basically the same thing. Not exactly. Libertarians generally believe in the smallest possible government at all levels. A “Federalist” (as I see it) would believe that the Federal Government should be limited to it’s Constitutionally defined powers and that most government should occur at the state and local level. So, a state could have a state health care plan. A state could ban drugs and alcohol. A state could have a mandatory retirement system. As long as it doesn’t violate the Constitutional restrictions placed on states, a state can do pretty much whatever it wants. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Libertarians and Federalists are basically the same thing. Not exactly. Libertarians generally believe in the smallest possible government at all levels. A “Federalist” (as I see it) would believe that the Federal Government should be limited to it’s Constitutionally defined powers and that most government should occur at the state and local level. So, a state could have a state health care plan. A state could ban drugs and alcohol. A state could have a mandatory retirement system. As long as it doesn’t violate the Constitutional restrictions placed on states, a state can do pretty much whatever it wants. Exactly. I have no problem with different states trying out this universal health care or banning gay marriage or what ever the hell they want to do as long is it is funded and enacted by the state. And does not go against the Constitution of the United States and does not get any funding from the federal government. That way people can vote with there feet if it does not work. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Libertarians and Federalists are basically the same thing. Not exactly. Libertarians generally believe in the smallest possible government at all levels. A “Federalist” (as I see it) would believe that the Federal Government should be limited to it’s Constitutionally defined powers and that most government should occur at the state and local level. So, a state could have a state health care plan. A state could ban drugs and alcohol. A state could have a mandatory retirement system. As long as it doesn’t violate the Constitutional restrictions placed on states, a state can do pretty much whatever it wants. Exactly. I have no problem with different states trying out this universal health care or banning gay marriage or what ever the hell they want to do as long is it is funded and enacted by the state. And does not go against the Constitution of the United States and does not get any funding from the federal government. That way people can vote with there feet if it does not work. This has been done, and it bankrupted California and New York. That's why they are pushing for it on a federal level. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Libertarians and Federalists are basically the same thing. Not exactly. Libertarians generally believe in the smallest possible government at all levels. A “Federalist” (as I see it) would believe that the Federal Government should be limited to it’s Constitutionally defined powers and that most government should occur at the state and local level. So, a state could have a state health care plan. A state could ban drugs and alcohol. A state could have a mandatory retirement system. As long as it doesn’t violate the Constitutional restrictions placed on states, a state can do pretty much whatever it wants. How bad would that really be in reality? It'd certainly be superior to what we have now in that the state governments would have to expirement and compete with each other to determine the "best" system. Right now, anything done on the national level is forced down EVERYONE's throats rather than just locally as determined by the states individually. It'd be alot easier to prove that liberal programs fail when they have to compete with neighboring free states that choose not to be encumbered by government beauracracy. Right now, it's impossible to prove that any national program is succeeding or failing simply because you have no good alternative example to compare it to. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Libertarians and Federalists are basically the same thing. Not exactly. Libertarians generally believe in the smallest possible government at all levels. A “Federalist” (as I see it) would believe that the Federal Government should be limited to it’s Constitutionally defined powers and that most government should occur at the state and local level. So, a state could have a state health care plan. A state could ban drugs and alcohol. A state could have a mandatory retirement system. As long as it doesn’t violate the Constitutional restrictions placed on states, a state can do pretty much whatever it wants. Exactly. I have no problem with different states trying out this universal health care or banning gay marriage or what ever the hell they want to do as long is it is funded and enacted by the state. And does not go against the Constitution of the United States and does not get any funding from the federal government. That way people can vote with there feet if it does not work. This has been done, and it bankrupted California and New York. That's why they are pushing for it on a federal level. You were always picked last for the Debate Teams in school, weren'tcha? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Libertarians and Federalists are basically the same thing. Not exactly. Libertarians generally believe in the smallest possible government at all levels. A “Federalist” (as I see it) would believe that the Federal Government should be limited to it’s Constitutionally defined powers and that most government should occur at the state and local level. So, a state could have a state health care plan. A state could ban drugs and alcohol. A state could have a mandatory retirement system. As long as it doesn’t violate the Constitutional restrictions placed on states, a state can do pretty much whatever it wants. I see what you're saying, but as a little-L libertarian myself, I still believe the two are basically the same. "Smallest possible" is a judgement call; it only has meaning when qualfied, such as "smallest possible government providing essential services." At that point it's simply an argument over what is essential and what isn't. There is disagreement there between and within parties of course. Both ideas enthusiastically support the idea that all levels of government should be limited to what is permitted by the federal constitution as well as individual state constitutions. The argument is over what things, that are within constitutional limitations, should or shouldn't be undertaken. I don't think those answers are consistent within any party. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Libertarians and Federalists are basically the same thing. Not exactly. Libertarians generally believe in the smallest possible government at all levels. A “Federalist” (as I see it) would believe that the Federal Government should be limited to it’s Constitutionally defined powers and that most government should occur at the state and local level. So, a state could have a state health care plan. A state could ban drugs and alcohol. A state could have a mandatory retirement system. As long as it doesn’t violate the Constitutional restrictions placed on states, a state can do pretty much whatever it wants. Exactly. I have no problem with different states trying out this universal health care or banning gay marriage or what ever the hell they want to do as long is it is funded and enacted by the state. And does not go against the Constitution of the United States and does not get any funding from the federal government. That way people can vote with there feet if it does not work. From this information alone, then yes, I would like to go the way of the Federalist. Federal Gov. made by States, for them and the people, to work on things requiring a certain kind of hand. |