Eric, I understand your point of view, but I think it's overly simplistic. Some things are done better at a local level, some at the state and federal levels. If you look at U.S. history, you find that many of the most controversial federal "impositions" are in fact the imposition of the majority will on the minority, often to protect or assert the rights of another minority (blacks, women, homosexuals). Federal laws intrude on states' rights to protect rights and freedoms which state laws may not protect. Most, though not all of these, have been progressive and for the better.
You could start with the civil war. I agree that states probably had the legal right to secede, but the real issue was not states' rights but slavery - the issue that founders had dodged. Remember that the Declaration of Independence, which though not a legal document was certainly an expression of the political philosophy at the heart of the U.S. political "soul," said all men are created equal. Only, in the South, black men were not. The South would never have fired a shot, nor seceded, if the survival of slavery hadn't been at stake. To say that Lincoln should have done nothing is to assert that the institution of slavery have been allowed to perpetuate. You go on to talk about federal meddling in education, CNG conversions, health care, housing, college scholarships -- all over the map. If you want the federal government out of all social and economic life aside from the postal service, currency, interstate commerce, and defense, take a moment and think. Many federal programs, however convoluted, unwieldy, or inefficient they may have become, were instituted to redress a clear problem, inefficiency, market or private sector or local government failure. I'm glad that we have OSHA, the SEC, the FAA, the FDIC, the NTSB, NREL, NLRB, EEOC and others. They protect everyone against predations or unfair practices by local governments, businesses, and private entities. Imagine how bad things would still be for the handicapped without the Americans with Disabilities Act. Or how unruly and speculative the stock market without the SEC. Or how dangerous banking without the FDIC. What would you do if you were denied an apartment because of your race, or because the landlord thought you might be Buddhist? What recourse would you have without the Civil Rights Act? And we haven't even gotten to the environment. The fact is, states and local jurisdictions may or may not establish or protect your rights. You can scrap the program or agency if you want, but you'd better have a improved alternative to replace it, or a damned good explanation of why the problem/issue that program addresses is not longer of concern. I deal with federal grants for a living, so I have some inkling of the sprawling, contradictory nature of the myriad federal programs, offices, bureaus, boards, commissions, agencies. I agree that there's a lot to inefficiency, waste, and downright stupidity. But federal agencies differ from private funders in at least one important respect - accountability and transparency. If I write a grant to a foundation, and it doesn't get funded, that can be the end of the story. A federal agency, on the hand, has to be able to justify its decisions by making available scoring sheets, competing grant applications on demand (under FOIA). Federal grants provide better access to funding for all types of research and local initiatives. The grants issued by so many federal programs help foster the living laboratory we have here in the U.S., with so many states and local jurisdictions devising and testing solutions to common social and economic problems. That's not waste, that's good research, because the best ideas get disseminated. The federal government often leads the way in providing support for innovative ideas. regards, Thor Skov --------------------------------------------------- Message: 11 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:24:20 -0000 From: "mtushmoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: States and individual rights, not social darwinsim (was Re: If you"re pro war) My point was a bit misconstrued here. My point is that none of those programs (some of which do some good things) should not be run by the federal government. They are programs that should either be run by state, or local governments, or (God Forbid) non-government entities including charities and individuals. I fully understand that "everyone does better when everyone does better." I also understand that many well-intentioned government programs do more to keep people repressed than to encourage them to expand to their full potential. That's why I encourage education (for an example) to be removed from the government. It isn't managed in the best interest of the children, but usually in the best interest of the teachers union, and the continuation and expansion of whatever agency gets its fingers in the cash pie. In America today, you go through the school system, and are then thrown into the swimming pool of the big wide world. Unfortunately, our schools are often leaving life jackets on kids until graduation day in the interest of "protecting their self esteem" and other touchy feely crap, so that they don't know how or whether they can swim. Come graduation day, all the life vests come off, and into the pool you go, until you get to the edge of drowning and the government lifeguard department of social services has to fish you out of whatever trouble you got sucked into. I do plenty to support people who need help, and I'm the first person in line with my checkbook and my labor through private agencies. I also recognize, though that the only reason I'm able to do that is because I had good parents and happened to get a decent public school that taught me how to swim and make good choices on what roads to follow. I'd rather concentrate on the zeroth approach; try to keep people from needing a rescue in the first place, then rescue one or 2 people (through volunteer lifeguards) instead of rescuing an entire beach full of people with government paid professional lifeguards. I've been to swimming pools where you had to swim so many laps in the shallow end before they let you into the deep end. Since life doesn't have such a test, and life has a nasty habit of throwing in currents, undertows and drop-offs, it's in our best interests to make sure as many people as possible can swim. For that to be most effective, it has to happen at as local a level as possible without meddling from Washington. In short, my point was that the feds should have nothing to do with educating kids (Head start, teachers, college scholarships), health care, housing, and CNG conversions for automobiles. It was meant as a rant against big government putting its fingers where it didn't belong, NOT a rant to let people suffer. Eric __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Free shipping on all inkjet cartridge & refill kit orders to US & Canada. Low prices up to 80% off. We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark & more. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5510 http://us.click.yahoo.com/GHXcIA/n.WGAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
