I always find it funny when someone tells me "I only vote in the presidential election -- I only vote when it MATTERS."

Then, shifting gears without a clutch, that same person will biatch about school taxes or road maintenance or whatever.

Unless the president randomly decides to start a nuclear war, declares martial law or bans the Yodel, your local school board and municipal governments have way more impact on your day-to-day life than who's currently stocking the White House shiatter with brown trout.

I find it funny. Yep, let's go local. Then we can have a patchwork of laws on the contentious social issues.

TPI should have figured out that the slavery issue settled that power dispute.

Local governments have traditionally been the greatest oppressors of liberty in our history. This is why we must be aware of the decisions they make and the things that they do, at all times.

Shaggy_C: Local governments have traditionally been the greatest oppressors of liberty in our history. This is why we must be aware of the decisions they make and the things that they do, at all times

Thankfully, the liberties guaranteed at the federal level trump the local government. Unfortunately, the federal government forgot what those liberties are and there isn't anyone to trump it.

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I always find it funny when someone tells me "I only vote in the presidential election -- I only vote when it MATTERS."

Then, shifting gears without a clutch, that same person will biatch about school taxes or road maintenance or whatever.

Unless the president randomly decides to start a nuclear war, declares martial law or bans the Yodel, your local school board and municipal governments have way more impact on your day-to-day life than who's currently stocking the White House shiatter with brown trout.

Pretty words and logic are the last resort of the desperate, ya know.

You know who else thinks the lower levels of government should have more power?

The big problem with national elections is that people will vote based on how everyone else is voting. If all primaries were held the same day across the country, with results not being announced until there was a winner, it would be a different story than today. The same goes for the actual election. The fiasco that occurs with calling states has to affect how later voters vote. I would guess that these problems don't exist to the same degree in local and state elections. I'm not sure if the result is much better but at least people will be more likely to vote for who they want instead of voting for the person who looks like they will win.

This guy's idea of Utopia is two-fer Tuesdays at the Mohegan Sun Hard Rock Cafe.

sarcastrophe: Shaggy_C: Local governments have traditionally been the greatest oppressors of liberty in our history. This is why we must be aware of the decisions they make and the things that they do, at all times

Thankfully, the liberties guaranteed at the federal level trump the local government. Unfortunately, the federal government forgot what those liberties are and there isn't anyone to trump it.

The People trump all of it. Why have you forgotten this?

FTFA: Allow cities to implement local socialism, for example, and you achieve two things to fix this quandary. a) You make progressives stop whining on National TV, since they finally can create the Worker's Paradise they so desire in their own backyard, and b) You prove the superiority of market capitalism, once the local tax base in Progressivopolis collapses down to nothing, Atlas Shrugged style. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

I always get a kick out of these people that think they are smart, but would get their economic and social theory from a playwright.

Giblet: The People trump all of it. Why have you forgotten this?

You're delusional if you actually believe that.

Steaming Cup of SARS: You know who else thinks the lower levels of government should have more power?

Dick Cheney?

I always wish my woman's lower levels had more power, so I assume you mean Cheney.

The greatest fear of the founders was a majority faction that would oppress the minority. This is why they shied away so much from direct democracy. It is also why many of them favored a large Republic. In a large republic there would be sufficient diversity that no single faction could gain control.

Federalist 10, read it.

Also, Race to the bottom.

Mr. Coffee Nerves
I always find it funny when someone tells me "I only vote in the presidential election -- I only vote when it MATTERS."

Then, shifting gears without a clutch, that same person will biatch about school taxes or road maintenance or whatever.

Unless the president randomly decides to start a nuclear war, declares martial law or bans the Yodel, your local school board and municipal governments have way more impact on your day-to-day life than who's currently stocking the White House shiatter with brown trout.

You are so right it's not even funny.

My mother spent 15 years in the school board and was always amazed at how people would blame the board when they had to consolidate the district or eliminate their kid's sport or club because of budget constrants. These same people would either vote against or not show up at all to vote on referendums that would save these programs. It's like they think the board is bluffing when they say they will have to close a school or eliminate middle school sports. But these same people sure show up to vote for the presidential nominee of their choice who will save us all.

The money the school recieved from the federal government amounts to less tha 8% of their entire budget. The community makes or breaks their public school. Most people don't get this.

I've worked in local government for 8 years. They do not have the answers you are looking for here, move on.

Giblet: The People trump all of it. Why have you forgotten this?

When is the last time these People you speak of actually did something about it? If you ask the average American if they like the trade practices of Big Box retailers, the majority will say no. Then these same people will shop at a Big Box store. Ask these People if they think we need to cut our dependence on foreign oil they will all say yes (well except for canyoneer). How many trucks and SUV's do you see on the road? Unfortunately these People you are talking about need the government to protect them from themselves.

I'm surprised the article didn't mention the Kelo decision.

sarcastrophe: Giblet: The People trump all of it. Why have you forgotten this?

You're delusional if you actually believe that.

That's how it was intended. It's never been tested.

Many Americans want to finish the task of handing power over to the government by outlawing firearms. Fortunately, that has failed.

If a POTUS ever declares martial law, we'll see whether a few hundred thousand N'tl Guardsmen can control 80 million armed and pissed-off civilians.

I guess you haven't read much about civil uprisings or guerrilla warfare. The government usually loses badly. Plus, we are the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet.

Giblet: That's how it was intended. It's never been tested.

Many Americans want to finish the task of handing power over to the government by outlawing firearms. Fortunately, that has failed.

If a POTUS ever declares martial law, we'll see whether a few hundred thousand N'tl Guardsmen can control 80 million armed and pissed-off civilians.

I guess you haven't read much about civil uprisings or guerrilla warfare. The government usually loses badly. Plus, we are the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet.

I agree that this is how it SHOULD work, I'm just pointing out that it's not reality.

MFL: My mother spent 15 years in the school board and was always amazed at how people would blame the board when they had to consolidate the district or eliminate their kid's sport or club because of budget constrants. These same people would either vote against or not show up at all to vote on referendums that would save these programs. It's like they think the board is bluffing when they say they will have to close a school or eliminate middle school sports. But these same people sure show up to vote for the presidential nominee of their choice who will save us all.

The money the school recieved from the federal government amounts to less tha 8% of their entire budget. The community makes or breaks their public school. Most people don't get this.

These same "Federalist" that believe Washington should not tell the states what to do love to become state legislators and vote for unfunded local mandates. The biggest injustice that has been done to education is the state governments that have passed appraisal caps and tax rate caps for schools. They are choking the local school boards. In Texas there is a push lead by our Governor and a Senator named Dan Patrick to enact appraisal caps. Two years ago they passed a law that set the maximum school district tax rate 60% below the average mill rate. Now they want to cap appraisal rate increases to 2%. How the fark are schools in Texas supposed to cope with huge population growth and state mandated programs like ESL when you are choking the school's ability to generate revenue? That is what happens when people read the Fountainhead and think they are experts in Economics and Government.

sarcastrophe: Giblet: That's how it was intended. It's never been tested.

Many Americans want to finish the task of handing power over to the government by outlawing firearms. Fortunately, that has failed.

If a POTUS ever declares martial law, we'll see whether a few hundred thousand N'tl Guardsmen can control 80 million armed and pissed-off civilians.

I guess you haven't read much about civil uprisings or guerrilla warfare. The government usually loses badly. Plus, we are the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet.

I agree that this is how it SHOULD work, I'm just pointing out that it's not reality.

I know, but I suspect things are going to get ugly here over the next few years. If they do, the now-complacent attitudes of most Americans will be replaced by protests and violence. The government will probably under-, or worse over-react, and when the dust settles, things might be different from that point forward. Better, or worse, I have no idea.

Wait and see.

Giblet: That's how it was intended. It's never been tested.

If that is what was intended we would not have a Republic. You really need to read the Federalist Papers and then reread the Constitution. Although the Founding Fathers might have had a healthy fear of a powerful centralized government, they also had a fear of mob rule.

Giblet: I know, but I suspect things are going to get ugly here over the next few years. If they do, the now-complacent attitudes of most Americans will be replaced by protests and violence. The government will probably under-, or worse over-react, and when the dust settles, things might be different from that point forward. Better, or worse, I have no idea.

Wait and see.

WTF are you talking about? If The People did not take up arms and kick these clowns out of the White House WTF do you think Obama or McCain is going to do that is going to start a revolution?

DaSwankOne: The biggest injustice that has been done to education is the state governments that have passed appraisal caps and tax rate caps for schools.

The biggest injustice that has been done to education has been the government's involvement in it. Rising costs and dumber kids are the direct result of government intervention.

That is what happens when people read the Fountainhead and think they are experts in Economics and Government.

The Founntainhead is a novel about one individual's struggle against society/collectivism. It is not a treatise on economics or the government. Try reading books before making assumptions about them.

DaSwankOne: FTFA: Allow cities to implement local socialism, for example, and you achieve two things to fix this quandary. a) You make progressives stop whining on National TV, since they finally can create the Worker's Paradise they so desire in their own backyard, and b) You prove the superiority of market capitalism, once the local tax base in Progressivopolis collapses down to nothing, Atlas Shrugged style. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

I always get a kick out of these people that think they are smart, but would get their economic and social theory from a playwright.

I always get a kick out of people who think they are smart and believe Atlas Shrugged is a play.

Ayn Rand's novels are more about individualism over collectivism, not about economic theory.

Giblet: I know, but I suspect things are going to get ugly here over the next few years. If they do, the now-complacent attitudes of most Americans will be replaced by protests and violence. The government will probably under-, or worse over-react, and when the dust settles, things might be different from that point forward. Better, or worse, I have no idea.

The ONLY way this could happen would be a total collapse of the economy. And that's not happening anytime soon. As long as people can go to the store and buy stuff, they will be complacent.

DaSwankOne: That is what happens when people read the Fountainhead and think they are experts in Economics and Government.

I get my social theory from Fight Club (see above).

Just because there was a movie (or book) that discusses a particular topic, that economic or social theory is not immediately invalidated.

FTFA
Kulturkampf

You know who else talked about a Kulturkampf??

er, actually, he did; and seeing that word used on a borderline-fascist website is rather unsettling.

Ah well, the Prometheus Institute is a blog staffed entirely by losers who live in their parents basements and who cans write the html good. They're the sort of people who call themselves "libertarian", praise Jebus and then cite the Old Testament (and Corinthians, for the parts about keeping women in their place), and get excited when they hear we shot another penis-shaped missile at some more brown people.

but sadly, all you have to do to have credibility in this country is wear a tie and call yourself an "institute".

Steaming Cup of SARS: You know who else thinks the lower levels of government should have more power?


"I believe in reducing the power of the Republic Senate, and allowing local system governors to keep the populace in line, through fear. Vote Palpatine. A Portman in every bed, and a Gungan in every pot."

UnknownIdeal: The Founntainhead is a novel about one individual's struggle against society/collectivism. It is not a treatise on economics or the government. Try reading books before making assumptions about them.

MyRandomName: I always get a kick out of people who think they are smart and believe Atlas Shrugged is a play.

Ayn Rand's novels are more about individualism over collectivism, not about economic theory.

You are all right I am all wrong. Ayn Rand never called herself a playwright or wrote a play and Objectivism is only about how individuals function as part of society. We all know that economics and government have nothing to do with how individual's actions affect the society as a whole. I am such a dumbass.

Translation: I want to move where there are few brown people and I don't have to share with them through social programs.

wow, someone points out that Ayn Rand was the Grendel's Mother of the modern conservative libertarianism destroying public institutions, and three people jump on him? wtf?

DaSwankOne: You are all right I am all wrong. Ayn Rand never called herself a playwright or wrote a play and Objectivism is only about how individuals function as part of society. We all know that economics and government have nothing to do with how individual's actions affect the society as a whole. I am such a dumbass.

Well, I agree that Atlas Shrugged has an obvious economic message. The Fountainhead certainly does not. You picked the wrong Rand book to make your point is all. But again, the fact there is a book about such theories doesn't immediately negate the theory or the importance of the discussion of said theory.

sarcastrophe: Just because there was a movie (or book) that discusses a particular topic, that economic or social theory is not immediately invalidated.

I am not saying that there are not truths in art. What I am saying is that serious author should read something other than a fictitious work before spewing that kind of irrational piece about how local government is the awesome.

DaSwankOne: I am not saying that there are not truths in art. What I am saying is that serious author should read something other than a fictitious work before spewing that kind of irrational piece about how local government is the awesome.

You're right. I'm overstating your intentions (not being snarky). I actually did understand what you meant, but your example was a bit... combative and made the rest a bit meaningless, even though I agree with what you said.

I disagree with the solution of federalizing education though. If the local government is bad, I don't see how we can assume the federal government is going to be any better.

You can use the same logic to make the point against ALL government run schools. Granted, I wouldn't make that argument, but it's just as valid. I think local control and funding of schools is the best choice. Changing it (moving it up or down the governmental ladder) scares me.

DaSwankOne:You are all right I am all wrong. Ayn Rand never called herself a playwright or wrote a play and Objectivism is only about how individuals function as part of society.

Ayn Rand considered herself primarily a novelist and secondarily a philosopher. While she wrote several lesser-known plays, she did not consider herself a playwright by profession. Ayn Rand identified her philosophy as Objectivism after the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957. The Fountainhead was published in 1943.

DaSwankOne:We all know that economics and government have nothing to do with how individual's actions affect the society as a whole.

This was not the point nor theme nor plot of The Fountainhead.

DaSwankOne:I am such a dumbass.

True.

Whoever wrote this has never been to FLORIDA.

A big giant THIS to that whole article. At least somebody understands what being a conservative is about.

DaSwankOne: I am not saying that there are not truths in art. What I am saying is that serious author should read something other than a fictitious work before spewing that kind of irrational piece about how local government is the awesome.

While I think important principles can be drawn from Ayn Rand, I think the author's attempt to use Ayn Rand as a buttress for his argument fails. Ayn Rand was an advocate of individualism. She vehemently opposed democracy or any other rights-destroying form of government. Tyranny at the local level is still tyranny.

UnknownIdeal: Tyranny at the local level is still tyranny.

All things should be taken in moderation. My response to this is that I can have a greater influence on local policy. If my town has 500 people, my voice is 1 in 500 as opposed to 1 in 300,000,000.

DaSwankOne: Giblet: That's how it was intended. It's never been tested.

If that is what was intended we would not have a Republic. You really need to read the Federalist Papers and then reread the Constitution. Although the Founding Fathers might have had a healthy fear of a powerful centralized government, they also had a fear of mob rule.

I have read them. You should read them again.

The US Constitution describes how the federal government shall work. Its other purpose is to limit the control that government can exert over the natural rights that all humans possess, simply because they are human.

The Federalist Papers are as moot as Jefferson's many insightful personal letters to Adams. They're not a part of our government - they're just interesting.

The ultimate boss is The People. That's true of every nation, not just the US.

It's no mistake that, before Bush, federal troops were not allowed to act on US soil. Bush kind of took that one away... But it doesn't matter. Bush did this because he feared an uprising if he got caught killing US soldiers just so that his dad's friends could gain a few percentage points on their investments. He underestimated public complacency (and stupidity).

At the end of the day, all kings rule at the leisure and will of their subjects. That applies to all forms of government as it applies to America.

It's written nowhere that The People are the boss, true. Why bother? It's not something that can be altered by words in any form.

sarcastrophe: UnknownIdeal: Tyranny at the local level is still tyranny.

All things should be taken in moderation. My response to this is that I can have a greater influence on local policy. If my town has 500 people, my voice is 1 in 500 as opposed to 1 in 300,000,000.

While I understand where you're coming from on that, I don't agree that the choice is between tyranny in town versus tyranny in Washington.

You wouldn't take poison in moderation, so why take local tyranny in moderation?

hockeyfarker: A big giant THIS to that whole article. At least somebody understands what being a conservative is about.

True. Now, try and convince someone who's supporting Clinton of that...

UnknownIdeal: While I understand where you're coming from on that, I don't agree that the choice is between tyranny in town versus tyranny in Washington.

You wouldn't take poison in moderation, so why take local tyranny in moderation?

I think you're making the assumption that government == tyranny. If that's the way you think, you're confused. If not, I missed your point.

UnknownIdeal
You wouldn't take poison in moderation

unless you're trying to build up an immunity... I think the analogy still holds.

UnknownIdeal: You wouldn't take poison in moderation, so why take local tyranny in moderation?

Without wasting too many cycles thinking about it, which tyranny could you more readily change?

When was the last time DC undid ANYthing stupid that they have done? Why is marijuana still illegal while alcohol is not?

sarcastrophe: I think you're making the assumption that government == tyranny. If that's the way you think, you're confused. If not, I missed your point.

I think you misunderstood me. Government serves an absolutely essential role in the protection of individual rights. However, local democracy does not protect individual rights any more than our bloated federal government does. Instead, local democracy leaves individual rights to the whims of the majority to determine whether or not they should be dispensed with. Democracy is inherently anti-individual rights, as is, of course, tyranny by kings or despots. The Founders created a constitutionally-limited republic in order to prevent tyranny by a despot or mob and to protect individual rights. Bringing the mob rule to your home town does not seem like it would serve to protect individual rights, as the article suggests.

sarcastrophe:
I think you're making the assumption that government == tyranny. If that's the way you think, you're confused. If not, I missed your point.

I think you're making the assumption that democracy == good.

UnknownIdeal: I think you misunderstood me. Government serves an absolutely essential role in the protection of individual rights. However, local democracy does not protect individual rights any more than our bloated federal government does. Instead, local democracy leaves individual rights to the whims of the majority to determine whether or not they should be dispensed with. Democracy is inherently anti-individual rights, as is, of course, tyranny by kings or despots. The Founders created a constitutionally-limited republic in order to prevent tyranny by a despot or mob and to protect individual rights. Bringing the mob rule to your home town does not seem like it would serve to protect individual rights, as the article suggests.

Ok, then yes. I agree. Your problem isn't that the principles of our laws are incorrect, it's that we aren't following those principles. Again, I can have a greater influence on local laws than I can national laws. This is why it's dangerous to push legislation up from the local level to higher levels of government.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: I think you're making the assumption that democracy == good.

I would never make that statement and I demand you take that back immediately.