So... Is this "dark age concept" a.k.a. slavery wrong in the modern era? Or is that not answerable? I can't believe how you have been dodging a simple question such as this over and over just to avoid examining your own position.
My position has never been that the federal government should take control over everything, every time. If that's the "argument" you think I was making, you're wrong. My position is that the state government should have the control sometimes, and the federal government should have control sometimes; when and who should have more control depend on the issue and on who's right and who's wrong. Because in the end what really matters is that we get the right decisions made, and the wrong decisions righted, who's making those decisions doesn't matter as much as the decisions being right.
Take a minute to absorb this: sometimes =/= always. You've wasted enough energy chasing a Straw Man in this thread, don't you think?
On that note, let me triple check if I understand your position correctly and am not chasing a Straw Man of my own: do you believe the state government should always have control over issues pertaining to the state, and that it would always be wrong for the federal government to intervene, no matter what the decision at the state level is?
In my opinion, in the modern era, yes of course it's wrong, which I've already stated. But of course, that's just my opinion of a old age concept in the modern era. In the old days, perhaps I would have seen things very differently. I don't know how I would have felt back then, and neither do you. Hence why that earlier question was unanswerable. Nobody is avoiding anything here, you already got an answer to this particular question ages ago, but the concept of trying to force dark age concepts into the modern era is not a realistic scenario. It's not going to happen again, because morals have changed to where slavery isn't acceptable.
The problem of federal government making decisions sometimes, is determining which issues to have control over. I of course already stated that social issues should be localised as much as possible, because it's perfectly logical. When it comes to determining what to do with the single currency, that should probably be left to the federal government. Everyone shares the same currency, so a government that everyone shares should make the decisions with it. But like I've been arguing all along, just because you think something is wrong, doesn't mean that other people think it's wrong. Slavery is a ridiculous example, so try use other examples I've mentioned such as drug legalisation. I don't think drug usage is wrong in the privacy of one's home, yet the federal government says even possessing is wrong. Is forcing a state who's happy with their citizens using drugs to ban drugs acceptable?
If you think I'm purposely chasing a straw-man, then you're not good at clarifying your stance.
The state government should deal with social issues, and local expenditure. The federal government should be responsible for issues regarding the single currency, for determining national security decisions, and for handling agreements between states. The federal government should not be responsible for determining what to do with drug legalisation, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, as those are social issues. Remember, if they make the wrong decision with regarding a social issue, you're going to have a hard time changing it. It's not about who makes the right or wrong decisions, it's about what decisions each government should be responsible for.
Let's assume you wanted to legally marry someone of the same sex. Let's assume the federal government banned same-sex marriage (which is a realistic scenario, as they've done worse). In that scenario, you'd pretty much have no options, other than attempting to make a country-wide campaign to try to get the federal government to change their mind. On the other hand, if on a state level, the amount of campaigning you have to do is significantly reduced, and you have a higher chance of getting gay marriage legalised. Alternatively, you could travel a few hundred miles and live in a state where you feel more socially accepted. By reducing the power of the federal government, you're enhancing citizen's rights, you're enhancing their options, and you're enhancing their political power.
Ignore right or wrong here, because the federal government frequently writes laws that are morally wrong. Instead, think about providing options for citizens.
@
BigOnYa:
@
K3Nv2:
