What political idealogy is this? ( Also, we should have a QA forum! )

So, I was thinking about where I stand politically, and I see some virtues in socialism, but at the same time America is huge, and I hardly believe one government can represent both Los Angeles and southern utah at the same time effectively - You go from far left, to far right and I was thinking.. Why can't we have a small federal government - Very small, in fact, and larger state governments that have control of how social benefits are dispersed, and even their own laws for the most part- This would give us a wide variety of ideas, states could emulate what's working, and could get rid of things that aren't. From education to law enforcement, from healthcare to drug laws, and everything inbetween - It would let us define each state individually while giving us a chance to emulate what works best. Want lower crime? Emulate governors/mayors that put in place policies that seem to be working on those fronts. Want higher graduation rates? Same idea.

I've always been for larger state governments, and a smaller fed. You can hold a governor, mayor or city councilman a lot more responsible than you can senators/congressman as well. What does ATS think?

Also, I think a Question/Answer forum should exist - No stars or flags, simply a place where people can ask questions to other ATS members without fumbling around as to where they should make their post. Polls would be awesome in that forum, too!

a reply to: deadlyhope

information and collaboration forums might contain what you are looking for - here's the link for the Board Business & Questions forum www.abovetopsecret.com... - or if you want to pose questions to individual members you can U2U them.

I agree with your perspective on smaller federal government - if that requires state government to encompass more activities/departments/etc. then I would support it, so long as there are still checks and balances and corruption can be more easily contained and deterred versus the larger, more powerful Fed.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Have you tried The Political Compass test? There are several good ones that have been linked here before. I think they're fairly accurate.

Right now, each state has quite a bit of power to have it's own laws and policies. I think a balance of local laws that pertain to the citizens of the state, and federal laws that pertain to everyone is good.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I agree to an extent - I believe the federal government should be in charge of ensuring our constitutional rights, I do not believe they should be over other issues, though. For instance I believe each county, or state should have their own say on rights concerning grey areas such as abortion, and welfare benefits. No more arguments of economics or morality - You dig your own grave, or succeed on your own as a city/county/state. Expanding local and state economies, and shrinking the feds spending power is what I would like to see.

I think it would be amazing to have forums/discussion boards and such of how different mayors and governors run their areas - We could see trends, we could gather data to form statistics on what economical decisions create the best overall circumstances - Like the best education, the lowest crime. Having the fed weigh in on these issues makes everyone the same, and in my opinion that's not how it should be - Not to mention in the field of education we are behind many other major nations.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I believe the federal government should be in charge of ensuring our constitutional rights, I do not believe they should be over other issues, though. For instance I believe each county, or state should have their own say on rights concerning grey areas such as abortion, and welfare benefits.

I agree that our federal government should be in charge of ensuring our constitutional rights, like the right to autonomy and self-determination, not to mention privacy. Therefore, a woman's right to privacy and autonomy is violated by state laws against abortion. Abortion is not a grey area in my mind. It's no one's business but mine. My personal body is mine and control of it shouldn't be put up for a vote.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It is a grey area in the nation, though. Some will argue that it is privacy, and that our constitution does cover privacy, and others will argue about the fetus being a person as well - This battle hasn't really gone anywhere in years, so I assume having to drive a few miles to the next city that does allow it would be a lot better than the fed defining it, even against the will of tens of millions, if not more.

I'm pro-choice as well, but it doesn't change how things really are in the nation.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Huh. Who'da thunk it? I lean left of center.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

interesting, I test about 3 squares up, 1 square over. We're left-libertarians eh?

a reply to: deadlyhope

So i am a cross between Stalin and Gandhi , interesting cross .

Although I have to admit, I feel like I cheated. I knew what many of the phrases were asking politically or what sources they came from.

EDIT: And heh heh heh, I notice that a few of you are left leaning as well. Even one that I was sure was a hardcore right winger (glances at a certain Texan comrade...). Come on, join my plans for a socialist utopia! Comrades, you are needed! Muahahaha!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I could have guessed. We are very much alike in our political ideology, IMO. I'm a little left of you, but the same on the libertarian scale.