Supreme Court: >Furthermore, I am inclined to grant the Supreme Court power over state government - I would be interested to hear the reasons for opposing it.
Well, that would change the structure of the United States government as outlined in the Constitution. That might be OK -- the Constitution, as a document, was designed to adapt to changing social conditions -- but the issue is kinda big. What kind of government structure do you want to live in?
I think the system, as it was established, was designed primarily to give people options. It was designed by people who mostly had fled other countries for one reason or another, governmental, bureaucratical, or religious. I think they wanted to set up a system where it was easy to find a home that they would be comfortable in.
For example, if abortion is important to you, then under a weak federal government you have the option of moving (or traveling to) a state whose laws and policies match your beliefs. Under a strong federal government, on the other hand, the same law gets enforced across all states, so now you're out of luck.
I am not in favor of a strong federal government for that reason more than any other. A few states have made some effort to establish their own identity -- New Hampshire, for example, as the home for those who care about liberty, and Massachusetts as the state for educated people -- and I would like to see more of that, not less. I'd like to see what shakes out if we give the states the freedom to establish more of their own policies, and maybe I could find a place to live that would be less objectionable. Instead, I have fewer options, thanks to a too-powerful federal government that can set state policy on everything from education to science to religion.
Health Care: >I'll agree with you that the system is broken, but I'd prefer to support a plan like yours, one that has a reasonable chance of working, rather than Ron Paul's, which won't (and I mean can't).
...Yeah. I hate to agree on this, but, as a system, it can't work. It could work from the individual view point, where you'd still have the option of going to some facility that treated you in the way you wanted to be treated. If you're educated, then you might get effective treatment.
The cynical bits of me say that this is a great way to let all those people with no scientific understanding to self-select themselves out of the population, but, then the socially responsible part of me comes along and says that I don't really want to do that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
>Furthermore, I am inclined to grant the Supreme Court power over state government - I would be interested to hear the reasons for opposing it.
Well, that would change the structure of the United States government as outlined in the Constitution. That might be OK -- the Constitution, as a document, was designed to adapt to changing social conditions -- but the issue is kinda big. What kind of government structure do you want to live in?
I think the system, as it was established, was designed primarily to give people options. It was designed by people who mostly had fled other countries for one reason or another, governmental, bureaucratical, or religious. I think they wanted to set up a system where it was easy to find a home that they would be comfortable in.
For example, if abortion is important to you, then under a weak federal government you have the option of moving (or traveling to) a state whose laws and policies match your beliefs. Under a strong federal government, on the other hand, the same law gets enforced across all states, so now you're out of luck.
I am not in favor of a strong federal government for that reason more than any other. A few states have made some effort to establish their own identity -- New Hampshire, for example, as the home for those who care about liberty, and Massachusetts as the state for educated people -- and I would like to see more of that, not less. I'd like to see what shakes out if we give the states the freedom to establish more of their own policies, and maybe I could find a place to live that would be less objectionable. Instead, I have fewer options, thanks to a too-powerful federal government that can set state policy on everything from education to science to religion.
Health Care:
>I'll agree with you that the system is broken, but I'd prefer to support a plan like yours, one that has a reasonable chance of working, rather than Ron Paul's, which won't (and I mean can't).
...Yeah. I hate to agree on this, but, as a system, it can't work. It could work from the individual view point, where you'd still have the option of going to some facility that treated you in the way you wanted to be treated. If you're educated, then you might get effective treatment.
The cynical bits of me say that this is a great way to let all those people with no scientific understanding to self-select themselves out of the population, but, then the socially responsible part of me comes along and says that I don't really want to do that.
Tempting, though.