The one way out, on your premises, is to retire as many issues from political controversy as possible, by adopting a greater consensus on the fundamental duties of government, and reducing the size and complexity of government severely, so that there is a chance of managing it. All in all, you have made an argument for becoming a Libertarian......
Generally, that's where I am. I would be favorable to the idea of national referendum for achieving consensus on some major issues. Make the government a little more Democratic and a little less Representative. Yes, the people will screw up from time to time. But they'll learn and feel a little more in control of their government; as they should be.
I do share some positions that would fall into the Libertarian court. And I've been quite serious when I've suggested, leaving education [and funding] to the States on a wholescale basis along with police forces etc. The only real way to thin out the intrinsic management layers is to pass as much as possible down to the States.
As much as possible is admittedly too vague, but we have to look very closely at national interest vs. state responsibility, IMO. But I'll shift to the left on life and death issues; I see an appropriate role for the Federal government to make sure that the States don't kill off their constituents. I'm not about to let the States permit the pumping of PCBs into the ground water.
Health care, I'm waffling around in my own mind trying to figure out where to be. I can see it as a life and death role for the Feds or not. I understand some of the problems associated with national health care systems and I see some very positive aspects to them.
From a British Member of Parliament. All complex problems have a simple solution; and everyone of them is wrong.
So, to simply declare a national health care system constitutes a simple solution. I understand that.
jttmab |
