1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo I guess that means the about half the population will be dragged along kicking and screaming. Nice. Too bad Federalism died years ago in the US. Otherwise, it might be a model to better represent the population by dividing government into smaller populations to better represent the population.
Hugo Chavez, a burr in Western economic elites' saddle, won another six year term by receiving 54% to united opposition candidate Henrique Capriles 45% with 80% (!) of the electorate turning out to vote.http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/08/14287713-venezuelas-hugo-chavez-wins-3rd-term-vows-to-deepen-socialist-revolution?lite&ocid=msnhp
economic domination and supports egalitarianism as an important societal goal. Kudos to them.
I guess in the interim they can continue to look to one man for all their answers. Despotic democracy is in fashion these days.
Originally posted by whodeyActually, Venezuela has a federalist type of government and the opposition candidate is governor of one of the larger states.
So I guess that means the about half the population will be dragged along kicking and screaming. Nice. Too bad Federalism died years ago in the US. Otherwise, it might be a model to better represent the population by dividing government into smaller populations to better represent the population.
Originally posted by whodeyChavez leads a democratic and elected government. The attempt to smear him with the label of a dictator is just idiotic.
So I guess that means the about half the population will be dragged along kicking and screaming. Nice. Too bad Federalism died years ago in the US. Otherwise, it might be a model to better represent the population by dividing government into smaller populations to better represent the population.
I guess in the interim they can continue to look to one man for all their answers. Despotic democracy is in fashion these days.
Dividing government into smaller units certainly improves accountability and permits diversity. From this we have to assume that at some level you consider it is okay for people to enjoy a government that they can hold to acount. So the question becomes, what aspects of our lives is it okay to place under democratic supervision, regulation and control?
At some point, as you reduce its scale, you create a government that is impotent to influence anything that matters. Which parish council do you envisage might have taken on the multi national oil companies to demand a share for the people of Venezuela and how big would any government have to be to have a chance of success against them?
What you see as government taking tax money from hard working individuals translates into real schools and infrastructure contributing to a civilized life for millions of people. What you see as hard working individuals translates into vast, unearned wealth gained by seizing control of natural resources like oil.
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganPresumably if someone drills for oil they would need the permission of government, unless it is on private land. They would then need to be given the terms of being permitted to drill. If the people in question want compensated it would be up to them to provide the terms for such compensation whether such a government is big or small. As a result, your hysteria is lost on me.
Chavez leads a democratic and elected government. The attempt to smear him with the label of a dictator is just idiotic.
Dividing government into smaller units certainly improves accountability and permits diversity. From this we have to assume that at some level you consider it is okay for people to enjoy a government that they can hold to acount. So ...[text shortened]... s translates into vast, unearned wealth gained by seizing control of natural resources like oil.
I'm glad you agree that smaller government is better overall. Thanks for that.
Former President Woodrow Wilson helped lead the progressive charge against the traditional Federalist system. He wrote, "The old theory of the soevereignty of the States, which used so to engage our passions, has lost its vitality. The war between the States established at least this in principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers. Furthermore, we are impatient of state legislatures because they seem to us less represenetative of the thoughful opinion of the country than Congress is. We know that our legislatures do not think alike, but we are not sure that our people do not think alike."
Looking at a Congressional approval rating of around 9% for Congress, I dare say Wilson's theory can safely be said to be full of poo. These distant and entrinched politicians can all kiss my arse.
What really amuses me is that he used the example of the Civil War to help justify destroying Federalism. However, what if the South had won and done away with Federalism as well? Who would be there to challenge them? Idiot.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat I don't understand is how you think more federal powers will help your cause (although after all these years I'm not quite sure what it is you want from a government); the EU is clearly more federalized than the US but hardly an example of "small government" (although its federal government certainly is small).
Presumably if someone drills for oil they would need the permission of government, unless it is on private land. They would then need to be given the terms of being permitted to drill. If the people in question want compensated it would be up to them to provide the terms for such compensation whether such a government is big or small. As a result, your hys ...[text shortened]... ad won and done away with Federalism as well? Who would be there to challenge them? Idiot.
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraClearly you don't understand the term "Federalism". The term does not mean increasing federal power, rather, it is just the opposite. The states should govern themselves with the federal governmnet just being a referee of sorts who sees to national security. It is the way things used to be until such power was usurped by the federal government. Now the US has more of a Chavez style democratic dictatorship where half the population is dragged along kiicking and screaming. It is akin to mob rule.
What I don't understand is how you think more federal powers will help your cause (although after all these years I'm not quite sure what it is you want from a government); the EU is clearly more federalized than the US but hardly an example of "small government" (although its federal government certainly is small).
Originally posted by whodeyI know what it means, what I'm saying is that e.g. Sweden would hardly be your kind of government even though it is more "federalized" with respect to the EU than e.g. Texas is with repect to the US federal government.
Clearly you don't understand the term "Federalism". The term does not mean increasing federal power, rather, it is just the opposite. The states should govern themselves with the federal governmnet just being a referee of sorts who sees to national security. It is the way things used to be until such power was usurped by the federal government. Now the US ...[text shortened]... p where half the population is dragged along kiicking and screaming. It is akin to mob rule.
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot so. Sweden acually pays for their nanny state. The US does not. Therefore, Swedens government is much more respectable than the US government. However, now that Sweden is part of the EU, Sweden will now be picking up the slack for other states that do not pay for their nanny state. Welcome to hell Sweden.
I know what it means, what I'm saying is that e.g. Sweden would hardly be your kind of government even though it is more "federalized" with respect to the EU than e.g. Texas is with repect to the US federal government.
Originally posted by whodeySweden isn't part of the eurozone.
Not so. Sweden acually pays for their nanny state. The US does not. Therefore, Swedens government is much more respectable than the US government. However, now that Sweden is part of the EU, Sweden will now be picking up the slack for other states that do not pay for their nanny state. Welcome to hell Sweden.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's a baseball analogy. "Starting from 3rd base" means you have a substantial advantage from the start as most batters start from home and must reach 1st, 2nd and then 3rd base before they have a chance to score by reaching home again.
Then what's the relevance of your "third base" comment?
The point being that Northern European countries after WW II had considerable societal and social advantages as compared to a state like Venezuela in 1998 (I pointed out a few).
Originally posted by whodeyWhen and where did Woodrow Wilson write this?
Presumably if someone drills for oil they would need the permission of government, unless it is on private land. They would then need to be given the terms of being permitted to drill. If the people in question want compensated it would be up to them to provide the terms for such compensation whether such a government is big or small. As a result, your hys ...[text shortened]... ad won and done away with Federalism as well? Who would be there to challenge them? Idiot.
Originally posted by no1marauderRight, so the aftermath of WW2 was not as bad as not having control over some oil revenue. Got it.
It's a baseball analogy. "Starting from 3rd base" means you have a substantial advantage from the start as most batters start from home and must reach 1st, 2nd and then 3rd base before they have a chance to score by reaching home again.
The point being that Northern European countries after WW II had considerable societal and social advantages as compared to a state like Venezuela in 1998 (I pointed out a few).