Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shift-Subject t1_iyarcbh wrote

Reply to comment by chickey23 in At least 2 Pennsylvania counties fail to certify election results by deadline by BoggyRob

Why not dismantle the power of government and nullify laws all around? I mean... I'm not going to follow unjust laws whether it was Shapiro or Mastriano. They're both pieces of shit.

−14

chickey23 t1_iyarx8z wrote

Government does more good than harm. Removing government policies and procedures without having replacements in place will be destabilizing. Rather, a progressive replacement of government apparatus is the only method to build a better future

8

Shift-Subject t1_iyatk2d wrote

Government does not do more good than harm. Government is the cause of most of our problems on both sides of the populist isles. Government should function on the local level and in accordance with the local populous.

−10

Muscadine76 t1_iyawctl wrote

Yes, hyperlocal control has historically worked out great for minorities and economically marginal groups. And for pretty much any problem requiring large-scale coordination, like: infrastructure, pollution control, healthcare, etc.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyaytg4 wrote

Centralization of government is better? Lol

−1

Muscadine76 t1_iyaz6q6 wrote

That’s not what I said. But for some things a more centralized government is basically essential. The key is a good balance between more localized and more centralized forms of government.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyazxgh wrote

I disagree. I think the more localized solutions are, the better focused they are, and the more autonomy (freedom) is given to the localities.

Everyone likes to say there's a social contract, but nobody likes to take responsibility for their end of it.

1

Muscadine76 t1_iyb1kyu wrote

Your disagreement isn’t based in anything different than a religious doctrinal declaration of faith. The idea that “government is the cause of most of our problems and those problems would be solved if we only had local government” is nonsensical to anyone actually familiar with contexts where there are no functioning government or only local/tribal governance. And handwaving wishful thinking doesn’t solve any of the issues I already mentioned.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyb1z5k wrote

Well, we haven't mentioned any problems yet, so your accusation and argument are based on your imagination.

The only claim I've made is that localities can focus on local problems and provide solutions that centralized government can't... you've yet to refute the claim.

0

Muscadine76 t1_iyb28lw wrote

I literally listed problems earlier so I guess reading comprehension isn’t your strong suite. But also I’m not in the habit of arguing with religious fundamentalists. Have a nice delusional day.

2

chickey23 t1_iyav95t wrote

Your local, self-governed population will be absorbed by a larger neighbor. Happens every time

2

Shift-Subject t1_iyayqsi wrote

It should be defended with weapons if necessary. Decentralization should prevent larger absorption.

−2

chickey23 t1_iybaieu wrote

Your proposition is that we replace a global system of international cooperation with an endless series of armed camps

1

Shift-Subject t1_iybb0zl wrote

Lol you think we have an operational system of international cooperation?

You mean ideological colonization?

How many countries do we have to bomb into oblivion before it becomes concerning?

0

chickey23 t1_iybgg4k wrote

I'm in favor of a complete reform of government and social organization, but I firmly believe that cooperation is more efficient than competition

2

Shift-Subject t1_iybh4yx wrote

Cooperation and competition go hand in hand (economically) but states should be able to negotiate state concerns. With other states and across nations. The United States was meant to be a consolidation of mini-nations (not exactly, but essentially).

0