Forbidden Donut

Once upon a time the federal government could only effectively run the post office.

My 2 cents.

I think the Federal Government should be in control of anything that transcends State and National borders, or has international implications. That being trade, military, currency, transportation, etc. Some things shouldn't be a federal matter, such as abortion issues, gay marriage, or anything dealing with religion. While I think personally that the government should have religious and moral views similar to mine, I don't think they should control those issues on the federal level.

I also think the federal government should be able to standardize requirements for things like education, road safety and rules, or food and health safety requirements. Over reaching things that often times cross state borders. I guess I just like standardization for things that change from state to state and affect the average person, especially now that people in the US don't really seem to identify themselves as Virginians, Georgians, New Yorkers, etc as much as they did 200 years ago when the states were much more independent and people rarely left their own state. Now it's no big deal for people to visit or live in much of the state, and social norms are not much different from place to place thanks to things like TV, the Internet, and Globalization. I like going from one state and having the same type of traffic laws as another state. I think it would be great if one state had the same education standards as another state, as it would be simpler to fund that kind of program.

There should also be federally funded projects such as NASA, illegal immigration, or GPS satellites.

Anything dealing with the Constitution.


I just did this real quick, and I'm sure I missed a few things or explained a few things poorly, but I think that's it in a nutshell. I'll think about it while I'm gone.

The Federal Government should have the ability to raise a national defense (not offense). They should have the authority to write laws that protect people's rights from being violated by other people (not people from themselves). This includes right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (which imo includes the right to privacy and the right to religion). The Federal Government should also be in charge of foreign affairs, such as trade and "peace".

That covers the executive and legislative branches decently. The judiciary branch should interpret laws and the constitution and give rulings to clear what was meant by them. They are to define the gray areas. They aren't supposed to write law from the bench. I see activist judges as more of a hindrance than a solution.

That pretty much covers it, but there are a few other things that I have been bouncing around in my head that I might like to see the Federal Government take control of. It falls within the idea of the national highway system. There are certain things that are common in every state and may be able to benefit from a standardized system. I'm thinking about power, gas, internet, and telephone services. It seems that if the Federal Government would take responsibility for getting things wired and producing services, it may improve the quality of all of them. I'm not sure yet on how I feel, but I've been thinking about it.

It would also upgrade my job from a utility company to a government job. I don't think I can ever get fired...

On a side note: Firefox has suggested that grey is a spelling error.

edit: really good topic, Court. I'm trying to avoid puns here. You didn't make it easy.

I love Jedd's response because of the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing.
life= govt protects us internationally with an army and domestically with police
liberty= govt protects our rights in the first 10 Amendments
pursuit of happiness= govt does its best to promote the prosperity of the country so as to better the chance for people to succeed on their own

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this post.

RON PAUL!

master of reminding America what our government was supposed to look like all along.

It's a moot point, and damn near every American would agree: Military, Interstate and International Trade, and VERY specific legislative situations. Everything else falls to the states. Don't take away state funding if they don't mesh with the FED and we're square. Now fire 250,000 gov't employees, dissolve half a dozen federal agencies, and you're sort of on the way to maybe getting the focus back on state's rights.

Well, not all at once.

The problem with doing it at all is that the government thrives on being a big government. They also make the rules. So our government will always rule in favor of governmental expansion rather than restraint, or they're giving themselves a paycut.

Are you just mocking Ron Paul or is that really what you think the ideal role is for the federal government?

The role doesn't necessarily have to be feasible in the US at the moment; we're speaking entirely in ideals.

Is that a good thing? Should we just accept that and give all our power over to the government?

I'm trying to see the point.

I think my ideal role for the federal government is pretty simple:

The federal government should exist to organize a defense against foreign invaders and protect all the rights guaranteed by the constitution when the states choose to infringe upon them or fails to adequately enforce their preservation.

Ideally, that would mean the federal government would be in charge of regulating the training, quality of and organization of state militias in defense of foreign invasion, pass laws that force states to preserve equal rights regardless of race, culture, gender, or sexual preference.

Everything else should be left up the states.

I think there is a fundamental flaw with that: taxes. Who decides how much the federal government receives in money to fund this military? That was on of the key problems with the Articles of Confederation; the government got however much the states decided to donate, which was never enough to do anything with.

Nevermind the fact that the United States is nothing like it was when the country was formed. When it started, it more closely resembled the EU and the European countries in it. Now it more closely resembles an individual state and the counties in that state. People don't generally identify as being from one state or another, they identify as being Americans.

Mocking sounds much too strong. I think that he absolutely reflects the purest government our country can have and succeed. But I have had this discussion over and over again and it becomes clearer each time that his idealism isn't feasible, and therefore the discussion itself is rendered inconsequential. The point is:
It's hard to find a flaw in Ron Paul's ideas. The flaws lie in what we are now, not with what he wants us to be. And he provides no plan to transform us. We need that part first.

/Ron Paul was my #1 in this race, Obama's my #2, now #1 for obvious reasons.

btw that speech was AWESOME.

He did give us some starting points in the debates. He said he'd work to phase out the IRS. He constantly mentions how he'd go after the DoE. From what I gather, he would get rid of the newer departments, like the DoE and Homeland Security, first. They'd be the easiest to dismantle (and haven't really brought us anything new and useful).

So, you are correct in saying has hasn't given us instructions on how to get going, but he gave us a starting point. He knew this isn't something that would be done over night.

Now that I'm done defending Ron Paul from a pseudo-attack. I'm going to get back to work... maybe.

Sorry if that came off a bit attack-y. The dude is wicked smart and his ideas are totally workable. And they work towards his vision of what our government should be. I also believe he would have fought tooth and nail to get his work done. But 4 years later, after 12 years of "republican" control (Ron Paul is a republican, George Bush is a usurper), and little marked improvement in our day to day lives, would we appreciate the strides he'd have made towards a smaller government? Things are really screwed up pretty bad atm. He has the *right* approach to solving a lot of our ills. But it would take a long time, and now's not the time. He'd get partway done and then get run out of office.

As it stands now I'm pretty sure Obama's out in 4 years. He'd have to do a HELL of a clean up job to get re-elected.