So many Australians...

Kristo I think you've been confused and successfully propaganded at by special interests. What you discribe is above all impractical- many people cannot afford to move, and think of the resultant chaos if people really felt such a need- your society is not set up around political fault lines, it'd mess things up.

Also I'd say that you underestimate just how much power the states really do wield, and undervalue have a united approach- if nothing less than it creates a more cohesive union.

Economically, think about companies playing state governmenst off against each other as Foolosophy mentions(it happens now aswell) and who actually benefits in such situations- it'd be worse under your system.

And what on earth are you refering to as the socialist downturn? Bush has let the market run rampant, and as crushing as a n over-regulated market can be, we have long since reached the other extreme of a market doing whats best for capital, not people. Its teh failures of the market thats seena downturn, not the socialist initiatives that...haven't happened.

Oh and nviromentalists and hunters can have some common ground- you both want teh species to survive right? Thats sustainability right there. You don't want to hunt things to extinction right? Course not.

Good points but I don't think that you read my second post. I would make certain that corporations don't have the ability to coerce the governments, state or federal, in any way. It would probably happen to a point but if any elected official were caught doing things that didn't benefit his or her constituents and instead benefits themselves, they would be considered criminals. The same way as if someone in a corporation were embezelling money. I think that the states lowering business taxes to compete for job creation in their state would be a positive thing. Again, i'm not all that well educated and i'm sure that my theory has holes, but the biggest thing that i'm advocating here is smaller federal government. Where in our constitution does it say that the federal government should have the ability to redistribute wealth? That, in a nutshell, is what some of the candidates are suggesting should they be elected. If you feel like you want to live in a semi-socialist society, move to California. I do agree that hunters and environmentalists can find common ground. The problem is the extremists on both sides. PETA thinks that if I shoot a deer or an elk, i'm evil. On the other hand, some hunters think that they need to shoot anything that moves and then waste all the meat. The reasonable sides of both arguments can get along fine. Oh and by the way, i'm well armed and grew up in the wilderness. If all hell breaks loose, my family will eat and be safe. Thank you for your concern though.

Exactly! You're a hero op.

__________________

Support FairTax!|Boortz|Vote Libertarian!
The People's Cube

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." – Winston Churchill

Economic Left/Right: +10
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.85

Thing is kristo, you're going to find it incredibly difficult to stop corporations from doing something, when they are the largest body in the land- with more money and, eventually, more people(employees rather than citizens) within their organisation- you can already see that on a global level when some multi-nationals have far more money/power than some nations, which they then go on to exploit.

What you're yearning for I think is the ability to have your voice counted, to have more of an influence over your own life, and the world you live in. That noble sentiment is being exploited by the propaganda machine of a small group of elites, whose main business is infact confusing and thwarting the public discourse.

How about if you had a democratic say in more things more often, at a local, state, national and international level- more closer to you obviously, but some in partnership with everyone else? If the discussion we were having now re: guns for instance was conducted by your average voter and could be properly counted? Sound ok?

If everything does go to hell btw, sure that gun will help for a while, but for how long? You need more than a firearm to navigate this life friend.

Sounds good. I am just sick of things being decided by courts rather than people. If it could directly effect my life, I want a say in it. Not neccesarilly by a direct vote but by the representitive that we elected and who is looking out for us rather that big business. It goes against what the US constitution says for a judge to decide how a major issue should be handled. Who says abortion is a federal issue anyway?? You can try to link it to the constitution but the facts are, it doesn't say one way or the other. Let the states decide for themselves. Not some judge within a state; what makes his opinion anymore valid than yours or mine?? Put it to a vote. I don't care if it's a statewide ballot initiative or a vote by the representitives at the capitol, it shouldn't be up to one or two people to make a decision on something that major. Bottom line-if it's not clearly stated in the constitution, it's up to the states. And no offense to the Aussies (I fought with you guys in Afganistan, thanks for your service), but the states SHOULD have all that power. If it's carefully monitered, we will prosper and not have to pay 60% fed taxes.