You have a point. We need to concentrate executive power at the city or county level, (because it is more dispersed and in smaller bodies) in order to pre-empt state-level oppression.
Is this guy drunk? Can somebody interpret?
He thinks you arbitrarily chose “state level” as the optimal aggregation level for these policies. If it gives people more freedom to aggregate policy in smaller units, then why not legislate on the country or city level, rather than state level?
In reality, it’s probably case by case. Municipal transportation, for instance, should be governed on the city level. Other services, like defense, are better on a national level.
No, that’s where the federal level (civil rights) come into play as a check and balance as well as the ability to freely move to another state without restrictions. Additionally, the need to mitigate risk is not the same as the need to eliminate it. I’m not sure you’re getting it, but I believe in you. Then again, I’ve seen the mess that is India’s government, or alternatively your career as a sell side analyst, so maybe not.
Ok, I didn’t choose state level. The founding fathers did.
City level gives you better individual representation at the cost of loss of synergies (ie highway maintenance), more chaotic work in aggregating or managing policies and representation and reduced bargaining power where state and federal interactions meet.
Regional levels would trade off those pros and cons.
If you want to argue that it’s arbitrary, fine. I don’t care at what non-federal level it occurs at as long as the central point remains. You need a more localized check and balance against the federal level with federal watching individual rights (national issue) and states guarding population subsets aligned with varying demographics and economies.
If you concentrate too much power at the federal level you wind up with unequally yolked and unrepresented subsets, often unnecessarily. Laws that may serve the people of NY may not work for Alaska, ignoring this to blindly centralize power only robs both of optimal outcomes in gridlocks.
Too loose and you wind up with the EU, too tight and you wind up with the Soviet Union. That’s my central point. I’m not blindly arguing for state’s rights at the expense of reason, Federal control exists for clear cause (as I’ve outlined before). I’m just saying that blindly arguing against it is silly and sub-optimal.
Pal just got murdered. He’s dead.
BS is right - sorry Plant.
Wait, this guy has a job? Does he have an electric bill as well? I would be shocked.
He certainly doesn’t understand what executive powers mean. It’s not a matter of enforcing Federal laws at a local level. It’s about allowing the States’ and Municipalities’ legislators, judges and executives to govern most of their own affairs.
And as far as efficiencies. States, cities, whatever, can voluntarilly combine resources if they think that makes sense. No need to force them to come together on issues beyond the constitution.
I think I grasp the debate a little better than you do. As usual, you barged into a debate guns blazing like an illiterate moron, and now you are going backtrack really fast. Because you are an insecure liberal as I’ve pointed out before who will suddenly argue the exact opposite point.
I will kindly explain: The discussion has been about the limits of federal government power, not states’ rights as a concept. Ghibli has been arguing that the role of the federal government should be limited to defense and commerce. Do you agree that the Federal government should have no role other than this, and ALL other duties are left to the state? This is the interpretation of states’ rights my friend Ghibli believes in and my response was in that context. Capiche?
That’s the thing, being the insecure liberal you are, you haven’t followed the discussion and you HAVE to go and blast a “liberal” POV, without understanding the nuances discussed before, and very quickly you find yourself holding a bizarre point of view, which leads to a lot of downhill skiing.
Did Propecia lower your IQ along with giving you a limp dick? I know it lowers sperm counts, are you sure your kid is yours?
Very unnecessary.
Yawn. Ok, I never said I agreed with Ghibli there hoss. When I entered I solely asked when did state’s rights get equated to slavery. You jumped to that conclusion. Then our own debate (which does not include Ghibli’s views) carried on from there and now you are backtracking to make a strawman and act like at some point I lumped myself in with Ghibli.
Speaking from personal experience? 
http://www.analystforum.com/forums/water-cooler/91336680?page=1
God I’m awesome.
Yep, no problems with finasteride and dutasteride. I don’t have a limp dick, you do.
FTFY. I figured you were due for at least one factual contribution to this thread.
Trump would approve of this thread.
can we call mercy rule on Palantir here? This is utter devastation.
^ This isn’t high school girls basketball. Let them play until the clock runs out.
and bchad nukes thread in 3…2…1…
People who only do the bare minimum are why America needs to be great again.
Ok, I thought about it and I’m apologizing to Palantir. I was annoyed, I took it too far and crossed a line and now I feel bad about it. I should not have done that.
I’ve been laid off more times than the majority of this forum so I know it sucks. My bad, trust me you’ll be fine.