Two Americas, One Solution
 

Since America is so divided (purportedly), how about we go back to a more restrained, libertarian Federalism like it was before the Progressive Era. If the states mitigate most domestic taxes/issues/problems, the closer the power and prerogative is to the people, and the more happy and less tear.

Like the neo-cons will go for it

Ah yes, the good old days, the supreme court even ruled a national income tax unconstitutional.

heh, oh how I would love this. If you really want it though, put your time where your mouth is and help the Libertarian party :thumbsup:

Yeah and maybe someday the Christian Extremists will eventually understand "love thy neighbor".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

Looking at the map of how each county voted it appears the two America's are distinctly urban and rural. Could this be from two distinct realities? Is life in the cities that much different than life in rural America? If so, is it time for a smaller more streamlined federal government and more power for the states or even cities and counties to govern themselves? Do we really need federal mandates that cover everyone when the realities of life are so different between states, cities and even counties? Is it time to look at how are government is structured and make changes accordingly? Could it be our founding fathers was wise beyond their years? Our federal government was originaly intended to provide a common defense and regulate the trade between the states. Is it possible that the Libertarian party truly holds the answers we all so desperately seek?

If only the Libretarian Party's candidate's last name didn't sound like a Norse God....

:lol:

So true :)

heh heh heh. Hey man, it's not his fault that's his name. Would be silly to change it just for politics. Besides, maybe I'm stubborn, but if a person's going to not vote for me or look into my issues because of my name, well I don't want that person's vote anyway. And at least it wasn't "Ralph Nader." ;)

Just curious (and maybe this deserves its own thread), but how have the libertarians been progressing lately.. pretty good?

Perhaps it's already clear, but I would agree with this. People would be a lot happier with the states doing most of the governing. Each person has more of a say as well (1 of 5,000,000 in Illinois for example is certainly better than 1 of 130,000,000 for all of America).

Now, regarding gay marriage, I don't think there would be a difference because I see gay marriage as a civil rights issue.

The Free State Project is moving slowly sad to say. As for winning elections, I'm not sure how many offices they picked up this election. I do know that Michael Badnarik got about the same number of votes as Harry Browne did in 2000 and came within about 20k of Ralph Nader. I think this is pretty good considering 1) the reluctancy on many people's part to vote third party this election because of what happened in 2000 and 2) the fact that Nader, even this election, got about 500x more coverage than Badnarik did.

EDIT: Just went to www.lp.org and read that 20 more Libertarians were elected to office on Nov 2.

the colored graphic maps give an illustion of unanimity in the "red states" that is no more than that.
that said, i have been thinking about this urban/suburban-rural split and trying to figure out how one might explain it...i ahve come up with a series of possibilities, but wonder what others have been thinking on the matter, if they have been doing so.

this seems like the logical extension of the thread premise....

You're right. I like the purple maps far more because they give a better representation of the truth. I stand by the belief however that there was a reason the USA was created as a federation of states and that it was a good one.

Haha! His name actually always reminded me of "Robotnik."

limited government is the cornerstone of conservative policy. republicans haven't been the staunchest advocates of libertarian federalism... but then again, they aren't always conservative either.

i'm a firm believer that more power should be given to the states with the federal government's primary duties restrained to foreign policy, defense, and transportation. this sounds like a wonderful idea to me. i think you'll find that evangelical christians would back this as well.

well you already have a fine example of what total decentralization of power means in how public education is funded...the reliance on property taxes make public schools into the direct image of the class position of the residents. poorer areas, shittier schools--and no obvious way to make arguments about the fact that this kind of distrubution of resources has terrible consequences--because power resides locally, it is difficult to figure out what register to make arguments about the problem as a general one.

same problem with privatization--it is not about efficiency--it is about reducing political risks for the state in a situation of hieghtened uncertainty (globalizing capitalism radically increases uncertainty for nation-states, which are no longer the dominant unit in shaping/controlling economic activitiy and aincillary social programs)

The difficulty with the evangelicals is that the Libertarian platform attempts to be philosophically consistant. The result of that is a lot of social policies that evangelicals would not go for. To be frank, the evangelicals fit best with the Constitution Party.

looks like russia, "one party to rule them all"

i would agree that the Constitution party is a better home for the hard hardline fundamentalists... but i'm nearly certain the evangelical Christian community at large would at least welcome libertarianism.

i'm sure that would back it if the consistency were to be found in the national application of local choice as opposed to a consistency enforced in a uniformly national level... each community would be able to decide their own tack on social issues while still adhering to a federal standards for things that nearly all of us agree on (defense, transportation etc.).

i think such a re-organization would force the US to take a more on-the-heels stance on international affairs, though it wouldn't necessitate isolationism. reducing foreign policy engagements to matters of immediate national consequence would provide more cohesiveness when action is needed... but may allow dangers to go unchecked for undesirable amounts of time.

<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/">Purple America</a> <--- FAR better representation of votes.

<a href="http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg">3d map of counties and who they voted for, raised by population</a> (the perspective makes Alaska look high)

I swear I could be president in four years running on an isolationist ticket. The one thing all the sides seem to agree on is that we are spending too much money and effort in other countries and not enough at home.

One would hope, but there ARE people running on somewhat of an isolationist ticket and people won't vote for them just because they don't have a (D) or (R) next to their names. And if you DO have a (D) or (R) next to your name, good luck getting anywhere with an isolationist ticket. :rolleyes:

scout, as someone who's lived in both very rural and very urban areas for 38 years, I have to say, generally speaking, yes, it's entirely different. There are rural communities in the Midwest who probably still won't teach evolution. There are county court houses where the judges have spit cups for their Copenhagen. There are white senior citizens in this country who haven't ever seen a black person, except on reruns of The Jeffersons. There are people in rural communities who say they'd never be able to live in a "big city" of 4000-5000 people. It's very, very scary. I've met some very educated, worldly people living in small towns - and some damned stupid, illiterate people from metropolises as well, mind you - but we're talking about two entirely different lifestyles and cultures. Rural people damn near speak their own language. Right now, I live in an Illinois community of 35,000. We all speak with your typical, All-American accent, the one they teach to Texas boys like Dan Rather so the rest of the country can understand them. It's a mild, bland accent. Drive five miles out of town in any direction, pull over, walk to the nearest farmhouse, and knock on the door, and the man who answers it will sound like Junior Samples. And we all go to the same schools. Farm communities are insular, narrow-minded, and isolated, and they like it that way, and I have no problem with that. But they don't live in the same world as the rest of us. Go to the bookstore and you'll find Ralph Ellison's "The Invisible Man" in the Sci-Fi section.