Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] State's rights vs Federalresponsibility(was: what majority wants Bush?)

[Rick Buford <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:

> It isn't that the highways would fail to meet.  It's that some states 
> would not put money into their highways and the quality of the road 
> would be so bad that drivers would prefer to go around the state rather 
> than through it.  To keep the economy strong, we need good roads for 
> transporting goods in trucks all over the country.
> 
And what is the basis for this? If there was a way for the state to 
extract money from people driving on their roads (i.e., sales tax, toll 
roads, etc...), wouldn't it be in their best interest to have -more- 
people come through? This is a silly supposition on your part that 
you're just trying to use to support your own position instead of 
accepting that there may be alternate viewpoints.

> 
> It was created by the federal government and it continues to be 
> regulated by the federal government.  Am I wrong?  I'm not saying it 
> never could have happened otherwise, but it has been a federal project.
> 
The internet as it is today was -not- created by the government. And 
while I'm sure that the backbone providers do carry some federal 
regulation on their behavior, this is no "regulating the internet", but 
more of a regulation of inter-state trade. The internet is a global 
phenomenon, and treating it is anything other than that makes us no 
better than China.

> The quality of their performance is irrelevant.  I'm just adding 
> something to the list of things that the federal government must do - it 
> can't be done by the states.  The federal government deals with 
> citizenship, nationality, residency, etc.
> 
How can it possibly be irrelevant? If someone is doing an important job 
badly, then steps need to be taken to either improve their performance, 
or replace them.

> We have trading partners.  We place sanctions on some nations.  We have 
> to oversee imports to prevent smuggling, disease, unwanted 
> plants/animals, etc.  I'm sure there's a lot more to it that I don't know.
> 
So, you're placing smuggling in the "international trade" category? 
Mike, your ice is getting thinner by the moment...

While I don't necessarily disagree that the enforcement powers regarding 
the border should rest in a central power, once again, the federal 
government is both too inefficient, and too slow to do a good job.

> Also, only the federal government is large and powerful enough to 
> regulate the massive multinational corporations that seek to rule the 
> world.  Only the federal government can force Microsoft, for example, to 
> abide by anti-trust laws.
> 
Once again, what is your basis for this? This is a brave new world Mike, 
and the US should be gearing up to compete in a global market, not 
isolating itself like feudal Japan. We are going to get the economic tar 
beaten out of us in the very near future because Americans are too 
complacent. We don't hold our politicians to a higher standard, why 
should we do so to our corporations. MS may have lost the judgment, but 
in terms of punishment, they got a trip to Disneyland instead of a 
spanking. On top of that, they --continue-- to push their embrace & 
extend strategy (Sender ID is a fine example) in an effort to maximize 
their continued monopoly.

Keep pointing out the federal government's failings, you're making my 
points for me.

-- 
Begin clever signature:
libido ergo sum
----------End Transmission
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion