It's what I have been asking - in many different ways. But in each case you simply refuse to actually answer, instead, you continue to snipe at me with comments like: The other part of my question is... why do so many Americans see to just automatically think it should go to the State level? Which, based on your answers so far is simply, "Because."
Again, this doesn't address anything other than "I think states is better than national" but you still refuse to answer why states is better than EVERY OTHER potential jurisdiction. Ultimately, your answers just proves to me that some Americans are obsessed with states vs national for no good reason, to the point where you can't even discuss anything else even when directly asked.
From what I understand, at least when I heard about it, is that states are supposed to know what's best for them cause they're closer to the issues. Not on a small enough scale as a city, but smaller than the whoke country. Feel free to correct me on this, Americans.
so how do the people in this thread feel about states being in charge of state crossing problems such as H5N8 outbreaks where differences in strategies might lead to ineffective eradication and the spread of avian influenza compared to the unified agreed upon strategies of the EU?
Implying the EU can work together, gud joke. Anyway carry on mericans, feel free to answer the question
This is more or less correct, in the sense that many of us feel that problems should be taken care of by the most local level that's properly equipped to handle whatever that problem may be.
I see it being similar to how the EU functions. What services would people in European countries be better served by if the EU as a whole handled them instead of the individual countries? In many cases, states are as large as countries in Europe.
I found an interesting read about federalism in the US. http://www.ushistory.org/gov/3.asp Make sure you use the navigation buttons at the bottom of the article.
"Most local" shouldn't translate to state as often as it seems to though - it's what I am trying to get at and discuss.
In any case, the exchange between Storm and I is really a case study on political discourse, where people seem to only talk in the frame of their ideology. For example, Storm advocates for states rights and small government. He knows I am on the other end of the political spectrum, and ASSUMES that I think everything should be national, no matter what we are talking about. Except that I don't care if it's national or state - it's still government - and I believe government, in general, has a vital part of any functioning democracy. For me, different things are best handled at different levels - sometimes that means local cities, other times it means counties, or it might mean national. What I question is why so often the answer Americans give is States which, other than historical context ane established infrastructure, are arbitrary borders with no logical context as to why it should be handled at THAT level. So all of Storm's answers to my queries assumes I am arguing for national for everything even tho I made no such statements, and he rarely actually discusses what I am asking - even when he understood what I was asking, he says "I'm not going to go into details here." But he had no problems going into all sorts of details on why national for everything is bad and how important states are.
So, if anyone wants to continue the discussion. I'd be curious if we can list some things that are best handled at the STATE level vs being handled at ANY OTHER level - and why that is the case.
I believe water should be handled at the state level. As you said it seems like the local level makes sense until you look further. Also as you said there is nothing about state borders that relates to water usage, especially when rivers are often borders between states. In theory districts could be created for each source of water, but that would still be arbitrary for how it is divided up. Would all water that drains to the Mississippi be one district, or would it be broken up by major tributaries? There's no reason for states outside the Mississippi drainage basin to be involved, so I don't believe it is a federal matter. Instead I believe individual states should work with each other. How is the Danube watershed managed? Do the individual countries work together, or is that something that the EU controls now?
Sokolov you're starting to piss me off here because I have given you at least three different ways the state level is better for many areas than the national level. Each time you simply ignore what I've been writing and claim I didn't answer your question. You might not have thought much of my answer, but don't claim I didn't answer it. For yours and the benefit of others I will recap though not in the order or the same way initially presented. 1. Greater representation in the legislation body and thus more accountability at state level than federal. 2. Laboratories of democracy concept to achieve better solutions faster than relying on a solution imposed from national level. 3. Span of control. The US a simply too large and diverse a country for the national level government to do all the things effectively and efficiently that a state level (or any government above local city or county) should do. I think we agree on some of the things that should be done at the national level. Not just things that are necessary for national survival like national defense, immigration policies or foreign policy. I think we can add things that by their nature must be uniform throughout the entire country like banking policies, monetary polices or units of measure. OTOH there's no compelling reason to have the same minimum wage over the entire US. Likewise there's no compelling need to have the same welfare, unemployment, health care, education or many other policies the feds have over the entire US. Let's just set aside for the moment that I think it's safe to assume that Sokolov and I have a disagreement on the roles of government. All add another reason and it's simple and is the most important reason why the US Constitution established a national level government of limited jurisdiction and not just simply a consolidation of the states; 4. Liberty! A large energetic national level government that tries to do everything lower level governments can do is despotic. History is full of examples of large overpowering national governments and the misery they cause. If my state screws up it's a lot easier to move to a different state than to abandon my country. As I see it the more the US moves towards a single consolidated country the more misery, poverty and tyranny we have. I have to admit I'm more clear in my mind the delineation between state and national versus state and local other solve the problems at the lowest level possible. I don't see a conversation, but more an interrogation. I'm the one giving thoughts and ideas on what basis makes something better for state level versus national or visa versa. I have mentioned things and why those should be at the national level. I'd like to ask Sokolov the same question he's asked me and go beyond the few grudging agreements for some issues and recognition that some aren't obvious. Maybe a general concept or two. I don't need a wall of text or dissertation here. (I maybe on TDY after tomorrow.)
The problem here, I think, is that you're answering a question that he's not asking. He's not asking for why State control can oftentimes be better that National control, but, rather, why State control seems to trump even more local control that is oftentimes even better equipped to handle whatever issue is at hand. Unless I'm completely misreading what Sok is saying, in which case, carry on.
i think what sok was really driving at wasn't state vs national, but rather state vs other lower forms of govt which you sorta winged when you said you'd prefer things to be handled at the lowest/most local level possible, which i think is generally agreed upon (the larger problem being with people disagreeing over the efficacy or the impact of different level decisions on x y or z) and BP, the basic idea as i understand it is that because these states are all free to govern themselves inside the bounds of the federal laws, they can approach a bunch of different situations and ideas in some wildly different ways, which gives you perhaps a better insight into what's worth spreading to other states or other levels of government this can be sort of negated by people saying "well those people in x neighboring state are inherently different from us", but mostly we don't do that too much edit- got piesky'd
