BF2S Forums Big government, do we need it? [USA]

lowing wrote:

not bad for a 230 year nation, huh?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-12 19:26:37)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

not bad for a 230 year nation, huh?

We started you off on the right track. Gotta love that French revolutionary spirit, eh! None of the problems of a crowded subcontinent - how difficult your nation must have been to manage with all those plentiful resources and freedom of movement... You soon found a fondness for waging war elsewhere anyway, not that Europeans are innocent on that front..

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

We started you off on the right track. Gotta love that French revolutionary spirit, eh! None of the problems of a crowded subcontinent - how difficult your nation must have been to manage with all those plentiful resources and freedom of movement... You soon found a fondness for waging war elsewhere anyway, not that Europeans are innocent on that front..

YOU started us off!??, the Frogs wanted nothing to with our revolution until it was proven that our malitia could defeat the British. The French only showed up to help drive the final nail in the coffin. OUR revolution was the inspiration for the French revolution NOT the other way around Cam. Now, back on topic

Lowing, back that train up a bit.  The French did not want to get involved and provoke a war with the British if the colonies had no hope of winning.  Without the French, the colonies would likely have lost the war.

The colonies lacked the supplies and navy to ensure a victory.  The French supplied both.

SenorToenails wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Lowing, back that train up a bit.  The French did not want to get involved and provoke a war with the British if the colonies had no hope of winning.  Without the French, the colonies would likely have lost the war.

The colonies lacked the supplies and navy to ensure a victory.  The French supplied both.

This is all explained in the movie The Patriot ..lol. Mel Gibsons character was modeled after another "Marion". Who was of French decent also.

haha, that movie was a terrible representation of the war.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

the french were at war with the American navy less than 40 years after the war.

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

The idea OF our govt. is perfect IS perfectin the sense that the power belongs to the people, that govt. is not stronger than the people who appoint representitives. The notion that it is the peoples responsibility and have the power NOT to let govt. run away with its appointed charges. A govt of the people by the people for the people IS a perfect govt.

In practice however, this does not ring true.

And state-centric government would take this power away from the people?

lowing wrote:

Yer right and the colonies had the momentum to convince the French that the war could be won. Thus the inspiration for the French revolution. The colonies proved the little guy could make a change.

Wikipedia wrote:

Historians disagree about the political and socioeconomic nature of the Revolution. Under one interpretation, the old aristocratic order of the Ancien Régime succumbed to an alliance of the rising bourgeoisie, aggrieved peasants, and urban wage-earners. Another interpretation asserts that the Revolution resulted when various aristocratic and bourgeois reform movements spun out of control. According to this model, these movements coincided with popular movements of the new wage-earning classes and the provincial peasantry, but any alliance between classes was contingent and incidental.

However, adherents of both models identify many of the same features of the Ancien Régime as being among the causes of the Revolution. Among the economic factors were:

- Louis the XV fought numerous wars bringing France upon the verge of bankruptcy. The national debt amounted to almost 2 billion livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the monarchy's military failures and ineptitude, and the lack of social services for war veterans.
- A poor economic situation and an unmanageable national debt, both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation.
- The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, which levied a harsh tax on crops known as the dîme. While the dîme lessened the severity of the monarchy's tax increases, it nonetheless served to worsen the plight of the poorest who faced a daily struggle with malnutrition.
- The continued conspicuous consumption of the noble class, especially the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette at Versailles, despite the financial burden on the populace.
- High unemployment and high bread prices, causing more money to be spent on food and less in other areas of the economy;
- Widespread famine and malnutrition, which increased the likelihood of disease and death, and intentional starvation in the most destitute segments of the population during the months immediately before the Revolution. The famine extended even to other parts of Europe, and was not helped by a poor transportation infrastructure for bulk foods. (Some researchers have also attributed the widespread famine to an El Niño effect.).

In addition to economic factors, there were social and political factors, many of them involving resentments and aspirations given focus by the rise of Enlightenment ideals:

- Resentment of royal absolutism;
- Resentment by the ambitious professional and mercantile classes towards noble privileges and dominance in public life (with a clear picture of the lives of their peers in The Netherlands, present-day Germany, and Great Britain etc.);
- Resentment of manorialism (seigneurialism) by peasants, wage-earners, and, to a lesser extent, the bourgeoisie;
- Resentment of clerical privilege (anti-clericalism) and aspirations for freedom of religion;
- Continued hatred for (perceived) "Papist" controlled and influenced institutions of all kinds, by the large Protestant minorities;
- Aspirations for liberty and (especially as the Revolution progressed) republicanism;
- Hatred toward the King for firing Jacques Necker and A.R.J. Turgot (among other financial advisors) who represented and had fought for the people.

Finally, perhaps above all, was the almost total failure of Louis XVI and his advisors to deal effectively with any of these problems.

CameronPoe wrote:

I think Lowing really has failed to show why big government is better than small government in this thread, and he has ignored several reply posts of mine on various points. It boils down to this:

How can having more power placed in the hands of individual states not be better, accepting that there will be freedom of movement, free trade and the same currency in each of the states? California is a million miles away from North Dakota in terms of people viewpoints and desires. How can forcibly subjecting California to adhere to the same rules and regulations as North Dakota possibly be good. If anything this would make the states more economically efficient: less wastage at government level (the smaller the government the more efficient and transparent it is) and it would create proper competition between states for investment, with governments trying to outdo each other with incentives, etc.

CameronPoe wrote:

I think Lowing really has failed to show why big government is better than small government in this thread, and he has ignored several reply posts of mine on various points. It boils down to this:

How can having more power placed in the hands of individual states not be better, accepting that there will be freedom of movement, free trade and the same currency in each of the states? California is a million miles away from North Dakota in terms of people viewpoints and desires. How can forcibly subjecting California to adhere to the same rules and regulations as North Dakota possibly be good. If anything this would make the states more economically efficient: less wastage at government level (the smaller the government the more efficient and transparent it is) and it would create proper competition between states for investment, with governments trying to outdo each other with incentives, etc.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now, in a nutshell, and in reality I do not think weakening our national govt. and distributing the power to 50 little govts. and 50 little agendas will work. I have given my reasons, greed, corruption, abuse of power.

Greed, corruption and abuse of power increases when you centralise power into the hands of fewer people lowing. Absolute power...

lowing wrote:

I think it is naive to think that out of 50 strong govts. on 1 continent all bordering each and all flowing in a different direction trying to accomplish different things that friction will not arise.

They're not trying to accomplish different things. They're trying to provide a vibrant economy in which their inhabitants can prosper, under the guidance of the constitution of the United States Of America.

lowing wrote:

I will bet Kansas will not be so apt to spend money on border control and security, after all why should they, They have several states around them to spend THEIR money on such things. You are telling me that all the outside bordering states will not get pissed off and sick of securing the borders for all states on the inside? Ya right.

Border control is a matter for the federal government. It is one of the elements that cannot be separated out into the 'individual state power' arena. I pay for Polish people to patrol my easternmost border - that's the reality of the situation.

lowing wrote:

You say competition between states is a good thing economically, well if each state is on their own, this becomes business and the object of business is to be the king of the hill. How is pinning one state against each other and try to force one another out of business a good thing again?

Because it forces the states to continually improve and seek to attract business through business-friendly measures. This in turn means that each state tries as efficiently as possible to improve their business environment bringing wealth and prosperity to the residents. Those who are not operating efficiently or performing poorly will either fail and be vacated or be forced to improve: no subsidies for failure. I cannot believe you are arguing with me on something like this - it's like you've transformed into your antithesis. The very essence of America is competition and improving performance through competition.

lowing wrote:

You then say well we can still have a national govt. just a weak one with the states having all of the real power. Great, so how does a weak national govt. keep 50 strong govts. together with no power when those 50 govts. start bickering like children?

There would be a framework under which the states would be bound to operate - foreign policy and the military, etc. would remain federal - no single government could change that. What exactly is the 'weakness' of which you speak?

lowing wrote:

I hear what you guys are saying and on paper sure sounds ok. But there are gunna be 180 Gazillion problems that arise that no one has even thought of. Then when you add a little real world greed and corruption to the mix you have a mess.

'Real world greed and corruption' is the bane of autocratic or centralised power political systems. The greater the level of devolvement the less susceptible the system is to corruption. Hence the reason tiny countries like Luxembourg and Switzerland operate so well.

lowing wrote:

Remember, what you guys have recently accomplished with your Euro and EU and shit, the US has been doing  for 230 years. I don't think we need any of your advice, since we left you in the dust the day we gained our independence, and you are basically copying the US now.
All coming together for a common goal, what a concept. Well it only took you 5000 years and your own brothers leaving you and starting their own country because you sucked but I think ya got the idea now.

I think you'll find we are not copying the US. Europeans want no further centralisation of power - all we want is the free trade of goods and ideas among like minded socialist countries on the same subcontinent. Europeans treasure their welfare system as a plus over and above the cut-throat ways of the US. Europeans like to think of themselves as progressive when it comes to things like the environment and scarce resources, enacting legislation that limits carbon output and makes recycling compulsory, etc. - to a far greater degree than anything the US has. Europe has a strong economy built on what our hard work - not built upon Chinese and Saudi credit. America reminds me of those people I know who have credit cards that they treat as an extension of their bank account - one day the bank comes and bites you on the ass.

PS If I'm not very much mistaken all the talk in the US these days is about medicare and universal healthcare. Where did ye get that idea, eh?

lowing wrote:

I do not think using the EU as a shinning template as to how all of you can work and play well together. Not given your history, and even recent history with the collapse of the Soviet Union and all of the problems that arose from that. It is laughable that you Eurotrash is handing out free advice to how best govern a country or countries, using yourselves as examples.  Seriously, no thanks.

There is no such thing as having a WEAK but effective govt.

I like the way you try and associate Russia with the EU. Clutching at straws perhaps? Kudos on the childishness by the way: 'Eurotrash'. Your posts seem to be disimproving.

Kmarion wrote:

When it comes to corrupted politicians it's much easier to toss out a local politician than it is in DC. People pay attention to the things that affect them most (locally). The "perfect" idea is being executed poorly because people stopped caring about the things that did not have an direct impact on their lives. Indirectly the voice of the people has been drowned out slowly and discreetly by legislation. Now we are in situation where we feel helpless. It's proof positive that a big government becomes an unstoppable and corrupted entity. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.