Heathen Board

I had considered that it might be better if federal power was lessened and more power to the states. But then I think that if that were so, there'd be a lot more divisiveness and our country would be weaker. It's better to stand united under a federal government, with the power to safeguard our laws and sovereignity than to morph into a bunch of country-like states with a weak union, not unlike Europe with their European Union.

As I've said elsewhere I am a supporter of the EU, mainly because politics has long been gone from the community anyway, so it should be collectivized to a effective scale. A Europe united in foreign policy, defense, energy, basic human rights and environmental policy could potentially change the world.

That said, much of other things we now put on the government should be put on a more communal level, ideally something like post-humanist tribes.

This is something in which Heathenry could be a front-runner. Heathen kindreds of various kinds could show the world how to be a community in this day and age.

The world is changing, I doubt we will have much use for terms like libertarian or conservative.

I think it is vital that we return the power to the states and take it away from the Federal government (note: this is precisely why we are called "the United States"--there was never any intention of the Feds running anything) for 2 reasons: First, solutions particular to one socio-economic reality don't always work well in another; and second our loss of state sovereignty is also what led to the loss of our system of Checks and Balances. Only by reclaiming that power can the states restore something as valuable to our system of government as Checks and Balances.

Shitty states like Arizona and Lousiana and Kansas are why I don't think states should get more power. We need the power of the federal government to keep these awful states in check, under the rule of our highest law - the constitution.

Thats the thing with decentralization, and freedom, you can't tell others what they can or cannot do (or restrict). Its part of the reason why absolute national sovereignty (or state sovereignty for Americans) is not feasible or desirable.

@Anna This is the whole point. You might consider some states to be “shitty” and others not to be and you have the freedom to pack your things and go across the border if you don't like it. As a matter-of-fact I'm working on a job transfer right now to do that very thing (I've grown to really hate the People's Republic of Massachusetts).
According to the Federal Constitution the central government only has 3 legitimate functions: (1) to prevent/reconcile conflicts between the states; (2) to protect the civil liberties of our citizenry; and (3) to defend the states from all enemies foreign & domestic (including piracy). So if you're arguing that the states need to have their laws controlled by the federal government, well, now we're not talking about the Constitution any more. But I may be misinterpreting what you're saying.

@Gangleri What is to guarantee that the the central government will be any more benevolent than the state? Here in the USA over the past 2 decades our system has eroded to the point that are civil liberties are less and our taxes are more than it ever was in the 1700s when the Founding Fathers demanded a revolution against tyranny. And virtually all of this has come as a result of two things: unelected bureaucrats creating regulations outside the limits of Congress and a whole slew of powers being added to the Executive Branch unlimited by checks and balances. Our recent historical experience informs us that the central government is a much bigger threat than the states have ever dared to be!

Gangleri wrote:Thats the thing with decentralization, and freedom, you can't tell others what they can or cannot do (or restrict). Its part of the reason why absolute national sovereignty (or state sovereignty for Americans) is not feasible or desirable.

I feel that it's necessary to tell others what they can or cannot do when they violate others' freedoms.

schwarzesonne wrote:@Anna This is the whole point. You might consider some states to be “shitty” and others not to be and you have the freedom to pack your things and go across the border if you don't like it.

This isn't so for everyone. Some people can't leave and it behooves us to make sure their area is following the rule of law(and that those laws are constitutional).

@schwarzesonne its the responsibility of the voters to take politics seriously. I was in California during the last governor election and the whole process seemed like a parody of itself. In a democracy politicians are no bigger bastards then you let them get away with being.

@Anna I agree 100%. But, then, on the other hand, it is also the responsibility of the states to insure that the Federal Government's actions are Constitutional as well—a responsibility most of the states are now to ch*ck*nsh*t to do.

@Gangleri Of course that's true. Funny thing, though, is that the Demopublicans have turned the political discourse so far away from our Constitutional structures that most people look at you like you have 6 heads when you remind them the the Constitution IS the law of the land. Couple that with the media circus and we really get a skewed version of the electoral process. And we wonder why we almost always get slippery politicians in lieu of principled statesmen!