Subject:
|
Re: Medical Marijuana
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:24:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
786 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > Why are "states" preferable to a single state? <snip> Is there a
> > benefit to preventing a one-world community?
>
> Yes, there is a benefit. One leadership at that scale cannot see the trees
> for the forest -- only the big problems could be dealt with, and not the
> smaller local ones.
>
> It is my assertion that I have no idea from here in CA what would suit the
> people of Maine best, and the reverse is also asserted by me -- that the
> people of Maine have no idea what's best for us here in CA.
I'll buy that, at least about certain issues. It seems to me that some
states would immediately erode civil rights if given the chance and not
prevented by the Fed from doing so. Yes, we always have privacy and
search-and-seizure issues whenever someone mentions the Fed, but these seem
less immediately tangible than, say, segregated schools and back-of-the-bus
seating. Might there be some agreeable balance between Federal oversight
and state-run free-for-all? That is, certain matters are, to me,
necessarily fundamental and should be enforced beyond what the individual
states may decree.
> Scale matters -- the bigger things get the more susceptible they become to
> corruption and collapse. Mother nature does not make a single being, she
> makes millions of them in the hopes that some survive. A single govt. could
> collapse fairly easily for all kinds of reasons -- if it is constituted of
> smaller units internally, you'd have to knock out each of the smaller units
> to get at the whole.
How about integrated parts of a whole, rather than a bunch of connected
but separate units such as we sort of have now, and which some would prefer
to be even more the case? Even under a single monolithic government
structure, there's no reason to think that all of the US would fall if Rhode
Island were compromised, so I don't know that the vunerability issue really
applies.
I agree that the problems of management would be considerable for such a
vast system, but I don't know that complexity is, in itself, a reason to
reject the sytem either. Corruption is an obvious danger, but would it be
more prevalent in a one-government system? Maybe, maybe not.; many of the
goals of even the most disparate governments are very similar, so corruption
of one is not much different from corruption of another. Perhaps the spread
of corruption would be facilitated by a single governing unit, but I'm not sure.
You make good points, so I'll need to think about it some more before I go on.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) Yes, there is a benefit. One leadership at that scale cannot see the trees for the forest -- only the big problems could be dealt with, and not the smaller local ones. It is my assertion that I have no idea from here in CA what would suit the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
