The Maelstrom of Violence

[Kinser79]

(08-22-2017, 06:57 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 06:12 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-22-2017, 04:35 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The recent colonies about to become States had had no strong connections before the Revolution wanted no centralized government.

The problem is that these United States are and always have been a federation of smaller republics.  We do not need, and should not have a strong centralized government because such is ultimately ineffective.  Even with modern technology and modern infrastructure it is for all practical purposes ungovernable.  The only thing right now keeping it together is tradition and well a certain political ideology is busy tearing that down.  I'll give you a hint who it is...not the Right.

As it happened, the Founding Fathers allocated the military to the federal level, and we approached military problems as a nation.  That's one place you are clearly wrong. 

No. I made no mention of leaving military matters to the states. Having a federal army, navy and air force is provided for in the current constitution. Any re-establishment of that constituion or an establishment of a constitution like it would not change that.

Quote: From there, you can look at other problems that have been solved at the federal level.

And what problems would these be? Poverty? It is worse than ever. Social cohesion? We have less than that than ever. Response to natural and man made disaster? Well Katrina and Sandy points out the effectiveness of the Federal response, whereas the states which have dealt with similar issues (say Florida with its many hurricanes) have been far more effective.

Quote:  These might have been approached differently, but a muddle of small governments trying to resolve large problems would have generated a muddled result.

At the best of times federal solutions are a hodgepodge. I'm not seeing what is different.

Quote:We do currently have two cultures

More than that actually. Which of course demonstrates why these United States are not a nation, but are rather a federation of nations. Nations must as a consequence of being a nation be historically constituted groups of people who share a territory, language, common economic life and psychological make up manifesting in a national culture.

Multiculturalism is not a culture, rather it is a failed ideology about culture.

Quote:It would be different if humans did not instinctively seek to amass power.

I don't know about you but I actually expect humans to seek to amass power (and wealth). Obtaining and maintaining resources is an animal instinct and humans are animals so they have this instinct.

Quote:And of course a partisan blinded into one perspective seeks to shift the blame to the other.  We could seek for each faction to grant what the other needs most rather than maximize the dysfunction.  That would be another vain wish.  Too many partisans are committed to the blame game and making life difficult for opposition partisans rather than opening their minds.  Common Sense is not in season.  It's too much fun to talk of violence, talk about tearing things down, while ignoring how to build things up after.

When a wild place is over grown and in need of a cleansing fire the plants and trees do not debate what will grow where after the fire. Lightning strikes, the place burns, and life continues on. Likewise with human societies.

Quote:Domestic questions aside, should the military function be unified?  The United States since the world wars ended things, generally in the direction of the Enlightenment values and Democracy.  We are still in the habit of thinking ourselves the world's policemen, of forcing cultures anywhere in the world away from their own path and towards ours.  Are we going to end that?  Not an idle question.  It's just that reverting to 50 smaller nations would require one answer.  The history of the world would be much different if somehow we had pulled back from unity earlier.

The idea that the US is or should be the "World Policeman" is absurd. It was a role the rest of the world does not need or want. The world would have been better off had the US after WW2 retreated back to its traditional isolationism. Instead, there was a push to develop and maintain an empire. But that is understandable if one understands that humans have an instinct to amass power (and wealth).

No state, and no regime has to this date found it possible to change the nature of mankind.

Quote:And domestic problems have been attacked from unity as well.  It is blind doctrine for some partisans to willfully forget that, which is just one of the problems with partisans.

But, sure.  Spout your opinions.

I would argue that the domestic problems we've had have not been attacked from unity. And where they have been the problem has been made worse by that federal action. Domestic spheres should be the sole province of the states because it is far easier for me to contact my state rep or senator in Tallahassee than it is to get Lil' Marco or Bill Nelson on the phone.

As for spouting my opinions....well that is the purpose of a forum. I don't force you to read them.