Chagur said: Not exactly what I intended to say... What I mean is - the taxpayer should not be funding the arts, sciences and humanities with his/her tax dollars. Those kinds of endeavors should be funded by the PATRON rather than the government. That being said - If a state government decides to fund these endeavors, they are within their constitutional rights to do so. It is certainly much less a calamity at a state level! Wet 1 said: Yes, there are many issues people don't agree upon - and that is exactly why the most controversial of them should be decided at the lowest possible level of government where the outcome of the vote infringes the LEAST upon the losing side. There is a necessary evil involved in majority rule that needs to be held in check. Let it be known that the issues I am speaking of are SOCIAL issues that are not of direct consequence to the welfare of the country - as is an army, for example. I don't understand your assertion that this will result in nothing being accomplished. Nearly all of the greatest technological advances were the result of private enterprise. What do you mean? Are you suggesting that to quell the jealousies of the have nots taxpayers should be stolen from? There will always be squabbles among peoples - ESPECIALLY when their rights to make decisions are infringed upon. I will post another topic regarding Abortion that I hope will help explain why SMALLER government control is better in this instance.
Our laws and methods are a hodgepodge of days gone by and some of today thrown in for good measure. It makes for a lot of inconsistencies. During the times of early railroad it was not feasible to present to the American public at the lowest common denominator. When it took better than week just to travel across the county. Much of our laws originate from there or even earlier. At that time there were less people to tally. I think the key here is the lowest common denominitor . Every advance of major proportion has at some point government assistance. Be it Queen Isabella funding the attempt at finding a new trade route (at that time certainly viewed as government) or research into particle physics. To make my point in the area of everyone not agreeing to a specific proposal look at Row vs. Wade. This is something I guarantee that not everyone agrees on. The right to have an abortion. Today it is still being fought over. It is to my amazement that the result has stayed this long. But you have those that definitely do not agree with the result still after overturning the ruling. In the meantime every so often you hear of terrorism on the small scale done against this clinic or that doctor. And this is no way to run a railroad (if you'll forgive the pun). In the mean time you have those who wish such services having to go through whatever public abuse that those against such can bring to bear. Now I agree that this is a poor example of what I originally started to bring out. It does show the at-odds with present laws that the politically motivated will go to. The issue with the roads. States do indeed initiate what roads will be repaired and when. However, the federal government provides matching funds provided the state fulfills certain obligations, not the least of is that they repair so many miles of road per year. So while the state is directly involved in the road repair, so is the federal government. Every year it seems that Louisiana is in the hole and has to scramble to meet the deadline. It does show just how important the matching funds are to the state government and what they will do to maintain the matching funds. In reality the have nots do indeed fund the national kitty to a greater degree than the rich. It's a matter of numbers. Take the middle class. Within its numbers are the greatest amounts of taxpaying revenue. So they tote a disproportional amount of taxes compared to the rich or poor. The rich have the money but the numbers of them are so few that even if you took, say 50%, of their total income it would not amount to what adding 10% to the middle class would bring. You would think that the poor should not pay taxes because it is the least of what they have. But such is not the case.
While the inventions you quoted have not enjoyed the initial financing they have certainly recieved their share of it since.
Abortion This is exactly the point I was making. People DON'T agree and that it why majority rule is a BAD thing. Of course, this is because people feel their government is forcing tyrannical rule upon them. The BEST solution to the controversy of abortion is for abortion law to be made at the LOWEST possible level of government. That's right, abortion laws should be made at the municipal level. This would solve A LOT of the animosity among people. Why? Because people will have a measure of control over their own social environments, which they currently do NOT have. Unfortunately, the way the US government is configured, the lowest level of government at which this decision may be made is the STATE. I'd MUCH rather have the state making this decision. It prevents the ultimate social tyranny that will result in a decision at the federal level. (Right now the federal government decides when, where, and how an abortion may occur - something that did not exist before Roe v. Wade.) I guarrantee you, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. All Roe v. Wade did was open the door to federal regulation of abortion, which can ultimately lead to it's being outlawed completely. Something a lot of foolish democrats overlooked.
I understand your premise and position. In many ways I agree with you. One of the things the federal government wanted to do was make a level playing field. But when the politicians get involved everyone has their axe to grind. The idea wasn't bad. To have every state in a uniform code so that laws that apply to one apply to all. That way one state did not say we would not have abortion and the next say that's ok. But the government wants it on a much larger field than that.
Back to the World Government connection This goes back to that question of a world government. So I imagine you can see why that wouldn't be a good idea? Imagine a WORLD government making regulations on abortion. Suppose someone needs an abortion and 51% of the WORLD says no? Never mind that, suppose 51% of the world decided they didn't like the other 49% and decided to exterminate them? Ugh... what an AWFUL idea. Better to have small pockets of people governing themselves. Then there is always a place to go to escape the tyranny of the majority. Don't get me wrong - a majority rule is a necessary evil - but lets not forget that it is ultimately an evil.
The "necessary evil" is where the finger gets stuck in the pudding. It would be nice if the lowest common denominator was the individual. In the real world it won't happen. Just like horses hooked up to pull a load, say a large rock, and all of them surround the rock in a circle. To many stray influences. There has to be that common point, which the majority agrees on, or it doesn't work. If I don't support having the garbage hauled off and want my tax to go elsewhere would you want to put up with the result of a smell generating, fly making, disease breeding garbage dump next door? At some place it has to go to an agreement point. We are at that stage where the world is the neighborhood. When the US gets the sniffles in the stock market, the rest of the world catches the cold. If we go down the tubes in an inflationary spin we take others with us. That's interconnectivity on a worldwide scale. Hence the global village. To many factors are now pushing us that way. Kind of like a snowball effect.
I think we are agreeing completely. Certainly there needs to be agreement. That's why majority rule is a NECESSARY evil. But the evil is there and must be minimized. This is why the federal government in the US has checks upon it. There are agreements (made by the STATES) that the the individual has a right to life, liberty and happiness as long as he does not infringe upon those same rights of others. In other words - one cannot kill someone without expecting incarceration and retribution. One cannot steal from anyone. These are understood as the individual's "rights." Then there's the Bill of Rights - which CHECKS the federal government preventing it from creating laws like "All individuals must go to Catholic Church on Sunday." In order to be JUST you must MINIMIZE the all that is evil about majority rule. To do that certain decisions of a social nature must necessarily be decided at LOWER levels of government. Suppose you are Amish and you settle in a small town that is 95% Amish. Now 95% of the town has certain beliefs in common. They are most assuredly against abortion, for example. Should those people be subjected to the rule of the United States majority? Or should they be able to determine that abortion, which, to them, is MURDER, will NOT take place in THEIR town? This is the point of restricting the powers of a federal government. Suppose you live in a town that is more secular in their beliefs. 95% of the people in this town feel that abortion is the right of a pregnant woman and that a fetus is a clump of cells with a certain potential. Should these townspeople be subjected to the rule of the US majority living outside of their town? Or should they be able to determine that abortion will be legal in their town? I'm using abortion here as an example, but other social disagreements among people are just as fitting - for example - what's being discussed in another forum right now - drug laws. Drug laws at the federal level is completely unconstitutional. This law is outside of the checks on the power of the federal government and all drug laws were passed in a very sneaky fashion for just this reason. Do you think it's fair that California passes a law legalizing the medical use of Marijuana and the OTHER 240 million people who live OUTSIDE of California get to overrule it? The more the federal government decides what your social liberties will be the LESS freedom we all retain.
