08-21-2010, 11:06 PM
ClassicalLib17 Wrote:Dear WTREADER, I appreciate your reply, however you need to appreciate the difference between local efforts and federal mandates. Would you feel the same about the library's effort if it had been mandated by the federal gov't? The beauty of limited federal gov't and states rights is, we have the freedom to move to another state if we don't like, and can't electorally change, our own state gov't. Think about it. If all you leftists had your own state, who would save you from your folly? Read the Constitution and hold dear the wisdom. If we lose that, the world will become an ugly place.
A thoughtful and well-stated response, CL. By the way, I fully support the libary foundation, and hope that the "Starry Night" event this very eve is a stunning success.
Indeed, there is a difference between Federal mandates and local-based initiatives. When it comes to limited government as set forth in our exceptional U S Constitution, I believe in this, too. And we have this, we have a limited form of governance. The Federal Government has its requirements and its boundaries, as do state governments and local governments.
Now I am aware of the concern that The Federal Government has become too big and too massive to adequately address a number of needs. Yet CL, let's examine the BP Gulf Disaster. Specifically, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal adamantly opposed "Big Government in DC" and was an ardent supporter of "state's rights." That was until the BP oil well exploded, then he suddenly begged The Feds for $$$$, for manpower, for expertise, for emergency assistance to blunt the crisis.
So you can't have it both ways. All of this "state's rights" jargon sounds good on paper, but when the big crisis come, then there are many functions that state governments cannot address in any meaningful way.
There is a reason for a strong Federal Government, and it served us better in this BP Disaster than any one state or group of states could ever accomplish.
-- WT Reader