And now for something completely different! This is a discussion that is somewhat, but not entirely, removed from the left/right debate. The powers of exit and voice, as defined by Albert O Hirschmen, represent the two primary powers an individual has over a relationship. I'll let wiki define the two terms here. Say you are unhappy with your job. You have two options, you can quit or you can work within the system to change your conditions. Both options are important, however I believe that the power of voice carries much more weight when the option of exit is available. I believe the power of exit is the single most powerful tool we can have over government and preserving it is paramount to human liberty. We can maintain the power of exit in our country by preventing a monopoly of government. This means leaving as many responsibilities of government to the states as possible. Thoughts?
Are you suggesting we all leave the country? Or are you suggesting that if we do not speak up we might never be able to leave?
I don't really think you're talking about exiting you're talking about "voice" or reforming the gov't to a state level. Do you not think that the gov't should transfer some more responsibilities out of the state altogether and into individuals for example allowing radio and television to have their own personal code of conduct. Personally I think reform is very important and an avenue for it is important in all aspects of life, family, employment, and gov't. That way people will always have an additional avenue if they have nowhere to exit, and can help avoid revolt or the total destruction of a relationship.
Reforming government to a state level would strengthen our power of exit by reducing the monopoly of government created by a stronger centralized government. Let me give you an example: If I am unhappy about the government in TX and I feel that I cannot change government through exercising my vote I have the option of moving to CA. That is the power of exit. When policy is implemented at the state level, our ability to exit can be exercised by moving to another state. When policy is implemented at a federal level, residents or businesses are forced to flee the country to exercise our power of exit. The more localized government becomes, the more freedom we have in choosing how we are governed.
Is that how you would describe the positions of James Madison? "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." ~James Madison
Pretty generalised in my opinion. Also, he is only one of several founding fathers. Others advocated a more prominent role for the federal government.
generalized And in response to each of your rather absurd statements (in order): No it isn't. So what? The 10th amendment still got ratified.
Not only generalized, but also incredibly broad. The powers of the state are only to concern those things that impact the life, liberty, and property of the people, or the internal order, or improvement, or prosperity of the state? That sounds a whole lot like the "general welfare" clause and the "commerce" clause of the Constitution put together, along with granting general police powers . . . In all, this seems to be an even more expansive way to define what is the state's responsibility than what we already have, and we know they can drive a supertanker through the Constitution already.
You should try reading the federalist papers before commenting on the positions of Madison. Let me expand the quote a bit. There really isn't any ambiguity in his words.
Generalised if you have associated more with those that I have. You already responded to my posts so why are you trying to sound hip now? Also, the seventeenth amendment was ratified.
Yeah, I guess I should have made my distinction between the fifty "States" and the one "State" a bit clearer. Madison advocated giving all this power to the States, but how is that any better than giving it all to the one federal State? I mean, you still have to move out of the state if you don't like what they're doing. You still have to uproot everything, leave your friends behind, find a new place to live, start a new life, etc., all because you don't like what the state is doing? I think that the power of exit should be embodied in the vote itself. When you vote for someone else, your previous party loses government. More like the parliamentary system, I guess. That way you could "leave" without moving.
This is only a more verbose excerpt than the one you submitted earlier. I understand what you are getting at, but the problem is that there are different ways to interpret the constitution. You might invoke Madison, I may invoke Hamilton, yet they never wrote in the constitution please try to do what we would do even though theres no way we can possibly see into the future or even know what we would do.
The point is that you can and that you are less free when that option does not exist. I am not saying that you should, or that it is easy, or that is somehow preferable to voice. I am stating that the power of exit is more powerful than voice and that the power of exit should be preserved. Having the power of exit does not eliminate the power of voice. I'm not sure I am following you or that you are following me. Let's say the government decides to outlaw blue shirts. How do I exercise my power of exit through vote to alter how I am governed and legally wear blue shirts? Under the system I am proposing I have the option to move to another state if I am terribly unhappy with a law. Under a strong central government I would have to flee the country to maintain my blue shirt wearing ways. Explain to me how I exercise my power of exit through voting in this scenario?
A minor version of that concept working well. My father has been a member of his local towns Lion's club for over 30 years. He's been their chapter president, spinster, and every other position in the group at different times, and he has always been one of the most respected members of the group. About 7,8 years ago, the group headed down a slippery slope. The Lion's are typically a community service group, unaffiliated with any political party, ideology or religion. Now, my dad lives in a pretty strong conservative community, and he's one of the few openly accepted liberals in town. In fact, he and members of the group had a lot of open conversations and civil debates about politics. However, as I stated, a few years ago a new leadership within the group started to get a lot more political in a very "un-Lion's club" fashion. Namely, they started bringing in Republican candidates and officials as guest speakers regularly and exclusively. Most (not all) of the clubs members were Republicans and conservatives, so this suited the masses. However, my dad was extremely dismayed and openly against this practice from a group that should not have engaged in it. Rather than choose one route or the other, he both spoke out and quit the club in one fail swoop. He made it clear that he was leaving the organization in protest, and he was very eloquent about his protest and the reasons for it. The results were nothing short of amazing. A few Republicans within the group actually stepped up and agreed with his reasoning for protesting. They too spoke out against the leaderships actions, and threatened to quit as well. The group of leaders themselves saw the wrong in their actions and came to my dad's house personally and begged him to come back. They also promised to not be "political" in that way ever again, and to only invite speakers if a sound opposition was also allowed equal time. It really made quite a difference to the community and it certainly gave me a great deal of respect for my dad. Quite honestly, if communities in our country would put HALF of the effort into actual community service as they do into the election process itself, how many of our nations problems would go away today? How many billions are going to be spent in 2012 just to get this person or that person elected while driving a wedge into our nation and not actually solving problems on the ground that that money and more importantly, that manpower, could quickly and easily solve. How much money do we spend to pass our communities problems onto some elected official, rather than take it upon ourselves to do something about it?
Anyway, the point remains that I no more so wish to eliminate the federal government than James Madison. I share his vision on how the republic should be shaped and preserving the power of exit is my justification of why. If there are any additional questions regarding my position here, let me know. As to BTeamBomber, that is an excellent example. Does anyone here have any objections to individuals maintaining the power of exit?
No i don't but if i understand correctly you advocate for the states to receive the federal powers making individual exit still very difficult as you have to leave the state, likely your job, and friends and making individual voice harder because you are still dealing with a massive organization. Why not reduce all governments power, not just fed and allow the individuals to go about personal voice and exit more effectively?
This isn't really a question involving how much government should there be but where government should be implemented. We can't, and it's not a bad thing that we don't, agree on how much government there should be. Preserving the power of exit provides each of us more power over how we are governed than voice alone, which is the point.
This is an interesting topic! The exit strategy used by many wealthy people in states like Ca., NY and NJ, due to insane taxes by predominantly left wing governments, is a prime example. These states raised taxes on the wealthy and the wealthy started to leave, giving the states less revenue to pay for their policies. Expatriating has been a recurring topic in libertarian circles for the past couple of years... well basically since PrezBO got elected. It's not as easy as you would think, the US government is not letting wealth leave the country, much like other totalitarian countries before it.
