• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What do you want the government to do?

While the federal government has become an expensive, authoritarian monster, there are other things that need be federal. Two quickly come to mind.

One of those is environmental. While the EPA has gone TOO far, water, aquifers and an air does not respect state borders.

1. Any state could dump their sewage, chemical and industrial wastes in rivers just upstream from a bordering state - nothing the other state could do about it. Put open coal power plants where is typically upwind from another state's major city, and completely drain aquifers just up water from the next state. What could the other state do? Can't sue - sue where under what law? Use their militia and attack the other state?

2. A dirtiness bidding war between states for jobs. Now nearly all hazardous waste dumps and chemical factories are in low population North Midwest states such as Montana and Nevada. Their legislatures are easy to buy and a promise of 200 jobs is a big deal. However, federal law still has guidelines. With no federal laws, each state has to do "dirtiness" bidding for industry and power facilities - leading inevitably to states having zero environmental regulations. Those state's citizens (mostly children and seniors) pay for this with their health. States that maintain environmental laws pay for it with lost jobs and shattered state income.
 
Last edited:
Another federal role is a national monetary system. While there are pretty slogans that could be made about states having each their own currency, it takes little real thought to recognize the huge problems.
The US dollar, compared to most of the world, is actually quite stable and why it still has value.

Each state issuing its own money essentially makes each state a foreign country with its own currency exchange. Unlike now, each state could turn on the printing presses, printing as much money as they wanted, could go into debt each their own, and quickly the conflicts between states, problems of state borders, and interstate commerce would become apparent. In this all, the dollar could lose its worldwide respect - and if that happens the economy overall crashes - seriously crashes.

The monetary system should be national, not state by state.
 
I agree, money and environment are national concerns. here in the west, there are elaborate water agreements set up among the states that we don't dare revisit but that aren't working that well. California was one of the only states out here that didn't regulate groundwater before this year (we finally are regulating it).

We need states to have flexibility to have tougher regulations - California's cap and trade is actually working pretty well and reducing emissions ahead of schedule. Ok, we're still getting dirty air from other states, but still - we're trying to help. Our tough car emissions standards ended up getting adopted by car companies nationwide because that was easier than making cars just for California.

But the base clean air, clean water, etc. regulations need to be set at the federal level.

And money seems obvious; even Europe saw the need for a common currency across countries. We used to have money at the local level... it was a mess!
 
How is depending on government looking out for yourself? Isn't that government looking out for you?


Maybe you have the time and energy to test all your foods, liquids (including water) and toys for contaminants, ebola, lead, etc. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to weigh everything - including the gas pumped into your car - to ensure the scales are correct. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to check every producer of every good you buy to ensure they are paying minimum wage, worker's comp, etc. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to go to every meat packing plant for the meat that you buy to ensure they are following health and safety standards. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to check out the levees, making sure they will withstand the next rainfall. I don't.

Yes, I need the govt. doing all this stuff - and more - so I don't have to.
 
Maybe you have the time and energy to test all your foods, liquids (including water) and toys for contaminants, ebola, lead, etc. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to weigh everything - including the gas pumped into your car - to ensure the scales are correct. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to check every producer of every good you buy to ensure they are paying minimum wage, worker's comp, etc. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to go to every meat packing plant for the meat that you buy to ensure they are following health and safety standards. I don't.

Maybe you have the time and energy to check out the levees, making sure they will withstand the next rainfall. I don't.

Yes, I need the govt. doing all this stuff - and more - so I don't have to.
I'm unsure how viable it is, but I recall reading a somewhat fantastical system in some sci-fi book.

Basically, the author had this system wherein private quality assurance and standards monitoring companies competed for contracts from various manufacturing/service companies - basically if they put their stamp of approval on a product, it was considered acceptable by everyone who excepted that quality assurance/standard.

Needless to say when one of them took kickbacks to pass defective products as acceptable and was found out their business basically was dead.


Even though that was a made-up situation in a made-up science fiction world, I have occasionally wondered if it would work better than the multiple government agencies we have for such. Of course we could still have some standardized measurements and the like...
 
I'm unsure how viable it is, but I recall reading a somewhat fantastical system in some sci-fi book.

Basically, the author had this system wherein private quality assurance and standards monitoring companies competed for contracts from various manufacturing/service companies - basically if they put their stamp of approval on a product, it was considered acceptable by everyone who excepted that quality assurance/standard.

Needless to say when one of them took kickbacks to pass defective products as acceptable and was found out their business basically was dead.


Even though that was a made-up situation in a made-up science fiction world, I have occasionally wondered if it would work better than the multiple government agencies we have for such. Of course we could still have some standardized measurements and the like...

My guess is, because private companies would need to make profits, the results would be less accurate and more costly. But I could be wrong.
 
My guess is, because private companies would need to make profits, the results would be less accurate and more costly. But I could be wrong.
Quite simply, their brand would be unimpeachable accuracy and quality standards. Despoil the brand and you get fewer customers.

Of course this wouldn't work unless there were multiple of these companies competing, each forcing the other to have equal or better quality standards.
 
Secure the borders; defend against invasion, retaliate against attacks.


Secure property rights, and the rights of the individual to life and liberty, and those rights that arise from that basic three. Keep such order as is necessary to have a functioning society.




Not much else really on my list.

The only thing I would add is the regulation of interstate commerce. Try as I might, I cannot come up with a way to make the planes stay in the air or the goods get delivered across state lines with each state having jurisdiction over their territory.
 
I rather have somebody looking out for me that I can influence by voting, then have coporate entities river stomp me into the ground.

If someone were to "riverstomp" you into the ground, I think we would all agree that they were guilty of assault, battery, and quite possibly murder.

However, I can't see what this has to with corporations.
 
Quite simply, their brand would be unimpeachable accuracy and quality standards. Despoil the brand and you get fewer customers.

Of course this wouldn't work unless there were multiple of these companies competing, each forcing the other to have equal or better quality standards.

And now I'm imagining private corporations having to sign up with multiple quality assurance companies.... don't see it happening.

My company has s/w that is compliant with ITIL standards. These are certified by a company called Pink Elephant. But we don't put every version of every product through their certification due to cost. Imagine if there were competing companies!
 
And now I'm imagining private corporations having to sign up with multiple quality assurance companies.... don't see it happening.

My company has s/w that is compliant with ITIL standards. These are certified by a company called Pink Elephant. But we don't put every version of every product through their certification due to cost. Imagine if there were competing companies!

Now, in addition to having to learn about the different products and different brands, people would have to learn about different auditing companies
Ain-t-Nobody-Got-Time-Fo-Dat.jpg
 
Now, in addition to having to learn about the different products and different brands, people would have to learn about different auditing companies
Ain-t-Nobody-Got-Time-Fo-Dat.jpg
In the author's fantasy world, there were court systems involving benevolent judges (also the world leaders/decision makers, what there were of those decisions) who had basically acquired office by donating all their assets to the government and living on a median income/lifestyle....

I've often thought it was that author's attempt to set up a near-libertarian society, if only in his mind/book.

Anyway, these courts would hear cases brought to them by citizens, and determine who owed who what (on their own judgement, no caselaw or guidelines, let alone jury) Hell at one point the author described a scene wherein a judge had a self-confessed and unrepentant rapist (societal clashes, long story) of an underage girl in his court.

In this fantasy world a recourse if you didn't like a court ruling was....dueling....so anyway, unrepentant rapist dirt-bag goes that route, someone hands him a gun, then judge pulls his handy (as in, he had it holstered on him at the time, or something) sidearm, and kills the rapist.

Vengeance, and all that. Judge apologized later, publicly, etc, etc, everything is fine, because bad guy, bull****, etc.

...............

Basically this author had an ideal society in mind, and built a sci-fi world to support it, with the bad guys losing and all that nice stuff.

Still some of the ideas stick with me, dunno why...
 
In the author's fantasy world, there were court systems involving benevolent judges (also the world leaders/decision makers, what there were of those decisions) who had basically acquired office by donating all their assets to the government and living on a median income/lifestyle....

I've often thought it was that author's attempt to set up a near-libertarian society, if only in his mind/book.

Anyway, these courts would hear cases brought to them by citizens, and determine who owed who what (on their own judgement, no caselaw or guidelines, let alone jury) Hell at one point the author described a scene wherein a judge had a self-confessed and unrepentant rapist (societal clashes, long story) of an underage girl in his court.

In this fantasy world a recourse if you didn't like a court ruling was....dueling....so anyway, unrepentant rapist dirt-bag goes that route, someone hands him a gun, then judge pulls his handy (as in, he had it holstered on him at the time, or something) sidearm, and kills the rapist.

Vengeance, and all that. Judge apologized later, publicly, etc, etc, everything is fine, because bad guy, bull****, etc.

...............

Basically this author had an ideal society in mind, and built a sci-fi world to support it, with the bad guys losing and all that nice stuff.

Still some of the ideas stick with me, dunno why...


That's what is great about sci fi/fantasy - imagining different ways of organizing society. Can be very interesting.
 
I'm unsure how viable it is, but I recall reading a somewhat fantastical system in some sci-fi book.

Basically, the author had this system wherein private quality assurance and standards monitoring companies competed for contracts from various manufacturing/service companies - basically if they put their stamp of approval on a product, it was considered acceptable by everyone who excepted that quality assurance/standard.

Needless to say when one of them took kickbacks to pass defective products as acceptable and was found out their business basically was dead.

Even though that was a made-up situation in a made-up science fiction world, I have occasionally wondered if it would work better than the multiple government agencies we have for such. Of course we could still have some standardized measurements and the like...

I would be in favor of people being able to decide what sorts of quality assurance they want in the things they buy from others. I don't feel it's my place to tell others what sort of quality assurance they must use, or to prevent them from buying what they want from whom they wish to buy it. I am not my neighbor's master, but his equal.
 
Back
Top Bottom