emission rights

[kandrathe]

But the most pressing problems, the ones that (purportedly) require a powerful Federal government, are exactly those that are not so simple as you suggest. Global trade. Environmental damage. Military threats. Criminal networks. Migration. Technological regulation. Shared resources. And so on. You can't just devolve enormous problems to the local level, because they can't be dealt with at that level.

If we only had to deal with your list, we'd be in pretty good shape at the Federal level. But, take an anachronism like the post office, for example. The are on track to lose 115 billion dollars over the next decade, after reductions in service, and increases in postal rates. There is zero reason, except legacy, for this to continue to exist as a public monopoly rather than as private enterprise. How about NASA's new mission to improve Islamic relations? Certainly, we have the State department to worry about that, right?

Humanity is not endangered by very much other than itself, and yet that one danger seems almost certain to kill us sooner or later. What, except a consistent set of laws over a large (possibly global) area, has any chance of "preventing us from being harmed, or harming others"? Almost all of the problems we face are caused by humans. We live an an age of externalities, where what we do in one place has an impact across the globe. Getting those issues sorted out doesn't even seem to be possible with governments at a national level. What possible hope could there be amongst hundreds of thousands of localities?

I'm not suggesting there be zero Federal government, just that it work in a more limited way being true to principles of federalism, and democratic republicanism.

Were we to adopt a policy of total harm prevention, as you suggest, ("100%") we would find our government utterly paralyzed.

It might have sounded like I meant preventing all harms, but that would be obviously extreme (e.g. balancing our freedoms with attempting to stop terrorist infiltration).

The question is usually where the buck stops, and with that policy, the answer would be "everywhere".

When the local animal control officer is not doing their job, the buck stops with the mayor. When BP has a blow out offshore at 5000+ feet, the buck stops with Obama, especially concerning international impact. Although, the governors of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida might also have a role in defending their shores. It's pretty clear to me.

At a Federal level, harm prevention would certainly include environmental things like clean air, clean water, off shore oil, endangered species protection. It would include interstate transportation and ports. It would cover working hand in hand with states to augment border security (unlike our Arizona problem), legal immigration, and emigration. It would include the branches of the military, although, I would prefer they focus more exclusively on the defense of the US.

The biggest problem with this idea (i.e. reverting to a more limited government at a federal level) is that it is nearly impossible to get people excited about all the things that won't be done for them anymore by reining in deficit spending.

The Republicans talk big, and do occasionally cut taxes, but don't have the guts to really cut back on spending. To be fair, there are about 3 kinds of Republicans from what I can tell; 1. Reaganites (Hannity), 2. Neocons (Cheney/Bush), 3. socially conservative fiscal libertarians (Glenn Beck).

The Democrats confuse me as well, since they tend to be all over the political spectrum; 1. idealistic (radical) leftists in their cool Che t-shirts (aka. college students), 2. Fiscally conservative/moderate social libertarians, 3. Outright socialist/communists, 4. Righteous dependents, 5. Progressives. What they seem to have in common is the consensus that people should be served by government (whether they like it or not) and it is unnecessary to curb spending, or avoid taxation in accomplishing that goal.

Me, I believe that I work like a Republican, and party like a Democrat.