Doug:
This week, we could discuss violence in the United States, classified email, or a host of other topics. But I am interested in exploring the recent vote by Britain to leave the European Union (sometimes referred to as Brexit, as in "Britain Exit"). Do you think that this vote has analogies in the U.S. with state government versus federal government?
David:
Sure. We're known as the United States of America for a reason. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789. Our government, with the House representing citizens by number, and the Senate giving each state an equal vote was designed to give states parity in their representation. The 17th Amendment gave voters the ability to elect their senators. Before 1913, individual state legislatures selected Senators from each state, providing for even more state's rights being protected at the federal level. There has been some call in the last 15 years for repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Doug:
There have been some Tea Party members advocating repeal of 17th amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01tue4.html?hp&_r=0 These Tea Partiers think that removing the vote from the people for electing senators would give the states more control. Also, they think that this would shift senator's attention away from lobbyists' interests and toward the state's interests. Such a change would be unlikely to deter the influence of lobbyists' money. But it could indeed lead to more stability in the senate, and away from the fickle swings of the active voters.
David:
That almost sounded like you agree with the tea party. There may be hope for you yet.
Doug:
Unlike you, I will agree with a good idea no matter where it comes from. I do believe that our country is more stable because not everything is left up to a vote of the people. The founding fathers very much feared the tyranny of the masses, and designed the government to be somewhat protected from such sways. The Tea Party is interested in repealing the 17th amendment because they think it would benefit them. It might, for a time. But over time it would just benefit the status quo, whoever that might be.
David:
I always agree with an idea that works best to accomplish the stated goals, no matter where it comes from. The framers of the Constitution designed the Senate in a way they thought would guarantee state's rights the best. The tea party, and you, recognize their wisdom. The tea party arose to promote fiscal responsibility. That benefits us all.
For the Europeans, they have a very long history of individual state sovereignty for each country. Europe's history is one of constant wars and animosity towards each other. I'm surprised that they were able to hold things together as long as they did. But there are also many reasons that a large confederacy of sovereign nations would struggle.
Doug:
Well, the European Union hasn't collapsed yet. Tension between local government and more broad government is natural. This is true with county vs. state, state vs. nation, or nation vs. multi-national organizations.
David:
They lose flexibility as well, and some degree of self-management.
Doug:
I agree. And that is a good thing, as it makes a compromise between self and group.
David:
That works for some things, but not for others. Just one example would be monetary policy. Greece and Spain are both countries that are tourist destinations, with beaches and islands along the Mediterranean coast. When the economy tanked, they would both have been better served to devalue their currencies, to entice visitors to spend their vacations (and spend their money) in each of those two countries. Being hooked into the Euro, and the inflexibility that went along with that, eliminated that option for them. But a stable currency can also benefit the union members in other ways.
Doug:
If that were true, then South Carolina and Alabama should have their own currency. I'd argue that the EU needs more pressure from the top level, not less. For example, more standards for retirement packages and benefits could ease tension between those countries with differing options.
But I do think that people should not be able to vote to leave the EU. That (like the 17th amendment) puts too much power in the hands of the people. This is one place where stability should trump voter's rights. Imagine if people could vote to leave the United States. Texit (Texas Exit) would have already happened, and Texas would be a third world country.
David:
There are a few things that a larger union of countries improves. They all have an interest in protecting themselves, and combining military forces provides for a greater show of strength. That is the whole point of NATO. But each European country doesn't need the union to provide for retirement. You're saying that the French should pay for the retirement of Greeks. That's a transfer of wealth from one country to another, with no benefit to the one losing the money. That's no partnership, that's robbery. I'm also opposed to Hoosier money being used to salvage the economies of California or Illinois, who have mismanaged their resources.
Doug:
You must really hate the very idea of insurance. Imagine that your money is being used to rebuild someone else's house! That would be transfer of wealth! When a hurricane strikes Florida, then yes, some of your Hoosier federal dollars go to support Florida. That is the whole idea of a social contract: you pay in a little for the greater good.
David:
If a man burns down his own house, my insurance doesn't rebuild it for him. Insurance is for accidents and acts of God. Not bureaucratic mismanagement.
Doug:
"The Lord works in mysterious ways."
David:
And I'm certainly not interested in paying the retirement benefits of people in other states, whose state governments promised what they couldn't deliver. On the other hand, we'll all contribute to Social Security, as Congress voted for that program.
Why would Texas be a third-world country? They'd likely be more successful than all of Central and South American countries. The economy of Texas currently ranks 14th in the world. The GDP of just Dallas-Fort Worth is larger Greece's GDP. (Of course, there are a great many things that Texas, or any state, doesn't pay for because they belong to our union of united states.) California and Illinois, on the other hand, more closely resemble Venezuela due to financial mismanagement.
Doug:
Texavania would have a wall built around it to keep out the immigrants (eg, people from Indiana, like that "Mexican" judge and you). You'd need a passport to visit Texavania. U.S. companies would stop building factories there, as it wouldn't be "made in the USA". There are indeed a great many things that benefit Texas because they are a state in the US of A. That is the point. Without it, they would fail. You know, united we stand; divided we fall.
David:
They're not interested in leaving the country. At least not yet. But if the agencies of the federal government continue to over reach their boundaries, that could change. The Bureau of Land Management continues to regulate how Americans can use the land they own. Small businesses continue to struggle under mountains of new regulations every year. At some point, belonging to a larger group becomes more painful than beneficial. Just ask average Britons.
Doug:
Sure.... we'll see how long this lasts.
David:
The states have faired very well as a union, but that's largely because most of our laws and rules have been agreed to and developed under that system, with input from every state in Congress. European countries have very different ideas about how to govern, and are very suspicious of each other's motivations going back centuries.
Doug:
It sounds to me like you are suspicious of California and Illinois. I'd argue that the USA still exists because we have of a strong federal level of government. Without it, we'd have something much like the EU.
David:
Again, that's because traditionally, every state has been on an equal footing in deciding the important matters that govern our land. In the past decade we've seen an erosion of that balance of power. Every time the president acts unilaterally, he dictates policy without compromise. Obamacare was dictated without compromise. And the next election illustrated that Americans were upset with the Democrats. While Democrats enjoy Obama's lawless executive actions (none of which has been upheld in court), those actions disenfranchise other Americans. That's a breakdown in our system. I'd argue that heavy-handed mandates from Germany led to England's departure from the EU. Germany is not trusted by many in the EU ( they started two world wars last century), and as Germany expresses a louder voice, more members will bail out.
Doug:
Erosion of balance of power! Unilateral acts! Dictator! Without compromise! Lawlessness! Breakdown! Heavy-handed! Hyperbole much? Don't you think that people take you less seriously when you are always so extreme? Or do you think if you keep using that language you'll convince someone that you must be right?
David:
Again, Obama has been challenged in court on these matters, and has not won a single case. I suppose you don't take the court system seriously? That, after all, is where differences in the rule of law is settled.
There must be a balance between individual freedoms and group unions. When the balance is maintained, all of the players benefit in useful ways. When one side outweighs the other, trouble and dissatisfaction develop. But whenever there's a question, individual freedom should be the default.
Doug:
No.
David:
And that appears to be the crux of our differences. I'll let our readers decide which is better, individual freedom to live your life, or bureaucratic management of your life.
This week, we could discuss violence in the United States, classified email, or a host of other topics. But I am interested in exploring the recent vote by Britain to leave the European Union (sometimes referred to as Brexit, as in "Britain Exit"). Do you think that this vote has analogies in the U.S. with state government versus federal government?
David:
Sure. We're known as the United States of America for a reason. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation in 1789. Our government, with the House representing citizens by number, and the Senate giving each state an equal vote was designed to give states parity in their representation. The 17th Amendment gave voters the ability to elect their senators. Before 1913, individual state legislatures selected Senators from each state, providing for even more state's rights being protected at the federal level. There has been some call in the last 15 years for repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Doug:
There have been some Tea Party members advocating repeal of 17th amendment: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01tue4.html?hp&_r=0 These Tea Partiers think that removing the vote from the people for electing senators would give the states more control. Also, they think that this would shift senator's attention away from lobbyists' interests and toward the state's interests. Such a change would be unlikely to deter the influence of lobbyists' money. But it could indeed lead to more stability in the senate, and away from the fickle swings of the active voters.
David:
That almost sounded like you agree with the tea party. There may be hope for you yet.
Doug:
Unlike you, I will agree with a good idea no matter where it comes from. I do believe that our country is more stable because not everything is left up to a vote of the people. The founding fathers very much feared the tyranny of the masses, and designed the government to be somewhat protected from such sways. The Tea Party is interested in repealing the 17th amendment because they think it would benefit them. It might, for a time. But over time it would just benefit the status quo, whoever that might be.
David:
I always agree with an idea that works best to accomplish the stated goals, no matter where it comes from. The framers of the Constitution designed the Senate in a way they thought would guarantee state's rights the best. The tea party, and you, recognize their wisdom. The tea party arose to promote fiscal responsibility. That benefits us all.
For the Europeans, they have a very long history of individual state sovereignty for each country. Europe's history is one of constant wars and animosity towards each other. I'm surprised that they were able to hold things together as long as they did. But there are also many reasons that a large confederacy of sovereign nations would struggle.
Doug:
Well, the European Union hasn't collapsed yet. Tension between local government and more broad government is natural. This is true with county vs. state, state vs. nation, or nation vs. multi-national organizations.
David:
They lose flexibility as well, and some degree of self-management.
Doug:
I agree. And that is a good thing, as it makes a compromise between self and group.
David:
That works for some things, but not for others. Just one example would be monetary policy. Greece and Spain are both countries that are tourist destinations, with beaches and islands along the Mediterranean coast. When the economy tanked, they would both have been better served to devalue their currencies, to entice visitors to spend their vacations (and spend their money) in each of those two countries. Being hooked into the Euro, and the inflexibility that went along with that, eliminated that option for them. But a stable currency can also benefit the union members in other ways.
Doug:
If that were true, then South Carolina and Alabama should have their own currency. I'd argue that the EU needs more pressure from the top level, not less. For example, more standards for retirement packages and benefits could ease tension between those countries with differing options.
But I do think that people should not be able to vote to leave the EU. That (like the 17th amendment) puts too much power in the hands of the people. This is one place where stability should trump voter's rights. Imagine if people could vote to leave the United States. Texit (Texas Exit) would have already happened, and Texas would be a third world country.
David:
There are a few things that a larger union of countries improves. They all have an interest in protecting themselves, and combining military forces provides for a greater show of strength. That is the whole point of NATO. But each European country doesn't need the union to provide for retirement. You're saying that the French should pay for the retirement of Greeks. That's a transfer of wealth from one country to another, with no benefit to the one losing the money. That's no partnership, that's robbery. I'm also opposed to Hoosier money being used to salvage the economies of California or Illinois, who have mismanaged their resources.
Doug:
You must really hate the very idea of insurance. Imagine that your money is being used to rebuild someone else's house! That would be transfer of wealth! When a hurricane strikes Florida, then yes, some of your Hoosier federal dollars go to support Florida. That is the whole idea of a social contract: you pay in a little for the greater good.
David:
If a man burns down his own house, my insurance doesn't rebuild it for him. Insurance is for accidents and acts of God. Not bureaucratic mismanagement.
Doug:
"The Lord works in mysterious ways."
David:
And I'm certainly not interested in paying the retirement benefits of people in other states, whose state governments promised what they couldn't deliver. On the other hand, we'll all contribute to Social Security, as Congress voted for that program.
Why would Texas be a third-world country? They'd likely be more successful than all of Central and South American countries. The economy of Texas currently ranks 14th in the world. The GDP of just Dallas-Fort Worth is larger Greece's GDP. (Of course, there are a great many things that Texas, or any state, doesn't pay for because they belong to our union of united states.) California and Illinois, on the other hand, more closely resemble Venezuela due to financial mismanagement.
Doug:
Texavania would have a wall built around it to keep out the immigrants (eg, people from Indiana, like that "Mexican" judge and you). You'd need a passport to visit Texavania. U.S. companies would stop building factories there, as it wouldn't be "made in the USA". There are indeed a great many things that benefit Texas because they are a state in the US of A. That is the point. Without it, they would fail. You know, united we stand; divided we fall.
David:
They're not interested in leaving the country. At least not yet. But if the agencies of the federal government continue to over reach their boundaries, that could change. The Bureau of Land Management continues to regulate how Americans can use the land they own. Small businesses continue to struggle under mountains of new regulations every year. At some point, belonging to a larger group becomes more painful than beneficial. Just ask average Britons.
Doug:
Sure.... we'll see how long this lasts.
David:
The states have faired very well as a union, but that's largely because most of our laws and rules have been agreed to and developed under that system, with input from every state in Congress. European countries have very different ideas about how to govern, and are very suspicious of each other's motivations going back centuries.
Doug:
It sounds to me like you are suspicious of California and Illinois. I'd argue that the USA still exists because we have of a strong federal level of government. Without it, we'd have something much like the EU.
David:
Again, that's because traditionally, every state has been on an equal footing in deciding the important matters that govern our land. In the past decade we've seen an erosion of that balance of power. Every time the president acts unilaterally, he dictates policy without compromise. Obamacare was dictated without compromise. And the next election illustrated that Americans were upset with the Democrats. While Democrats enjoy Obama's lawless executive actions (none of which has been upheld in court), those actions disenfranchise other Americans. That's a breakdown in our system. I'd argue that heavy-handed mandates from Germany led to England's departure from the EU. Germany is not trusted by many in the EU ( they started two world wars last century), and as Germany expresses a louder voice, more members will bail out.
Doug:
Erosion of balance of power! Unilateral acts! Dictator! Without compromise! Lawlessness! Breakdown! Heavy-handed! Hyperbole much? Don't you think that people take you less seriously when you are always so extreme? Or do you think if you keep using that language you'll convince someone that you must be right?
David:
Again, Obama has been challenged in court on these matters, and has not won a single case. I suppose you don't take the court system seriously? That, after all, is where differences in the rule of law is settled.
There must be a balance between individual freedoms and group unions. When the balance is maintained, all of the players benefit in useful ways. When one side outweighs the other, trouble and dissatisfaction develop. But whenever there's a question, individual freedom should be the default.
Doug:
No.
David:
And that appears to be the crux of our differences. I'll let our readers decide which is better, individual freedom to live your life, or bureaucratic management of your life.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!