|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 2:06 pm
Is the goverment in the U.S. too strong. Use specific events and cite specific examples.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:17 am
Hahahaha. No.
My example? The people.
Salaam~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:31 pm
How do you measure strength and who determines what the scale is? In what areas specifically are we looking at? Strength of laws? Strength of resolve? Strength of the military? Strength of the system itself? What?
At any rate, an effective government must be a strong government, especially at the national level. Otherwise nothing ever gets done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 6:57 pm
I tend to lean towards socialist systems, so I've got to say no. I like how the government stays out of our personal lives (for the most part, at least), and allows us the freedom to express unpopular views or profess unpopular sympathies. I like that they don't have the power to search our homes without prior review and OK. I like that they mostly don't tell us how to live our lives.
However, I don't like that big corporations can get away with almost anything. There is no protection for the common man. Capitalism dictates that if a company wants to outsource their production or manufacture in order to pollute, enslave, or maltreat, to get around laws we have here, they can. Imminent domain dictates that if Wal*Mart wants to put down a store, the government can take private land for a fraction of the previous cost and sell it to Wal*Mart if they can come up with a relatively passable reason.
Micronesia is a little chain of islands in the Phillipines. It's technically a US territory, so products manufactured there (mostly garments) can be labeled 'Made in America', while the workers aren't afforded even a fraction of the protection American workers receive. OSHA only has the manpower to inspect once every twelve years.Practices expressly illegal and reviled on home soil are shrugged off as overseas concerns when a US company uses them to produce goods sold in America.
But on the other hand: the FBI can tap your phones without a warrant- all they need is record of a suspiscious book checked out on your library card, and they can get that record with no paperwork whatsoever. There are still some laws on the books that restrict homosexual intercourse. Non-lethal recreational drugs are outlawed, while alcohol and cigarettes can be legally sold because of the taxes the government collects on them. The White House edits reports from the National Academy of the Sciences to incorporate political rhetoric and slant objective findings to suit whoever's in power.
So, no, overall I wouldn't say the US government is too powerful. It's just tends to be weak in places it should be stronger and strong in places it should be more lax.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:12 pm
I think the U.S Government is overbearing and destroying liberty under the guise of their anti terror campaign.
The suspension of Habeus Corpus was a biggie. The Patriot Act almost treats it's citizens as the enemy.
Give them an inch and they take a mile. They scoff at International Law and make laws to cover their backsides against prosecution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:23 pm
I think that the U.S. Government needs to be here because no one can really live as an Anarchist. Sadly, we need government even a little. I just think being able to take away so many rights like Gay Rights, and Gender Equality and abortion makes the government too powerful. They should be more like a bi brother, not Mom and Dad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:34 pm
Wishbone R Imminent domain dictates that if Wal*Mart wants to put down a store, the government can take private land for a fraction of the previous cost and sell it to Wal*Mart if they can come up with a relatively passable reason. I stopped reading at this part, but will look at the rest later. I just wanted to point out this is completely untrue. In any use of imminent domain, the government is required to demonstrate significant reason in its use, as well as pay an equitable amount for the property. These requirements may not always be upheld, but they are the requirements of imminent domain. To complain about them being broken is fine, but the problem lies not within imminent domain, but rather the inappropriate uses of it, as well as the lack of proper regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:38 pm
zz1000zz Wishbone R Imminent domain dictates that if Wal*Mart wants to put down a store, the government can take private land for a fraction of the previous cost and sell it to Wal*Mart if they can come up with a relatively passable reason. I stopped reading at this part, but will look at the rest later. I just wanted to point out this is completely untrue. In any use of imminent domain, the government is required to demonstrate significant reason in its use, as well as pay an equitable amount for the property. These requirements may not always be upheld, but they are the requirements of imminent domain. To complain about them being broken is fine, but the problem lies not within imminent domain, but rather the inappropriate uses of it, as well as the lack of proper regulation.Precisely. While our system is far from perfect, I think it is quite balanced and fair. Most abuses happen not because of the system we have, but in spite of it. This will be the case anywhere there are people ruling other people, and an incident of abuse does not constitute 'overpowered government'. A consistent string of abuses aided and abetted by the government would be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:32 pm
Whether or not the government is "too big" is hard to say. My first though went to marriage licenses. That needs to be privatized. There was a case in the Midwest in which the state used parents' marriage licenses to force schoolchildren to take part in an invasive procedure (the word "invasive" is very vague). Also, the state of Alabama did not repeal its Jim Crow law against interracial marriages until the year 2000.
I do believe, however, that the government gets too much say in what they have to respond to and what they can ignore. They can ship emergency supplies overseas to tsunami victims, but turn a blind eye to their own hurricane victims? They want to cut taxes for the middle class, but ignore the homeless? Then we have a president who cares for nothing but supporting his own lost causes (Iraq). There needs to be a tighter rein on the government. Whether they are big or small, they have way too much freedom of decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
