I'm not sure if the lot of you are being utterly stupid and misrepresenting my opinion, or if you're just trying to piss me off, honestly.
What part of 'layered' was difficult to comprehend? Sure, if you're building an interstate highway, it would fall under the Federal layer, because hey, multiple states are involved. Does that mean that local people should have no say in its construction? Should towns that the highway will pass through have zero say in its path? Dilbert is good at reductio ad absurdum arguments, painting a picture of every town picking different sorts of pavement for the highway, but he's being a complete ninny and knows I was suggesting no such thing. But if you really want to make that asinine sort of argument, it already exists, each state does pave their section of the highway differently based on costs and climate. If you drive through Texas, the highways are all concerete with no asphalt. If you drive through Arkansas, the highways are tinged red from the local clay that's mixed into the concrete. If you drive through Minnesota they have asphalt highways that are grated in order to increase traction in snow. You could be on the same highway, traveling through multiple states, and experience multiple road surfaces along the way. Amazing. But I wasn't even making that argument, I was saying that if a county wants to build an internal highway, it should not fall under the Federal Department of Transportation. There's no need to involve them, it's a local matter.
The same goes for public schools paid for by local taxes. See, every school district in my state is funded by local property taxes, and the curriculum is set at the local level by school boards. Yes, there are state guidelines that must be followed, but teaching style and everything else that goes on in the classroom is set at the local level. Yes, we do have boards of soccer moms advising the school board as well.
My entire argument is in favor of the Federalist system upon which this country was founded, and against the Statist approach that has been taken since Theodore Roosevelt and other Progressives. They've expanded the size and scope of the Federal government over the past century and it has come at the expense of local power. They have had grandiose visions of righting wrongs and centralized control which has just led to more corruption, and more one-size-fits-all pieces of legislation like No Child Left Behind. I've never said that the federal government needs to be abolished, just that its role needs to be diminished and taken out of the every day decisions that the people make. It needs to be around to run the military and take care of things that affect multiple states, but it doesn't need to be setting a universal curriculum for everyone to follow or deciding to force a states version of universal health care on the rest of us.
I'm simply a fan of diversity when it comes to political practices. I view each and every state as its own little experiment in democratic rule, and they all have their own little foibles, some of them work, others don't. The ones that work are generally picked up on by other states and implemented there. Others are ignored. Some examples: my state recently passed a law banning magazines larger than seven bullets (which is in the process of being overturned due to the illegal way in which the law was passed) so if gun control is really important to you, feel free to move here. If abortion is really important to you, you can move to Kansas where they just put severe restrictions on when a woman can get one (before the prenatal heartbeat can be heard). If you really want to be green and live in a carbon-less utopia, move to California where they have a cap and trade system in place. If taxes are an issue for you, feel free to move to New Hampshire, Texas, Florida (and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head) where they have no state income tax (or sales tax in NH's case). If you want to live where everyone has access to universal health care, move to Massachusetts. etc.
You all spent a good chunk of time mocking me, but it's the system we already have in place here in the US. Most of the decision making power already rests at the local level, I was simply making the argument that the expansion of Federal power is the worst thing possible if you actually care about democracy and people retaining power over their own lives, and should be reversed. I like living in a country where there are 50 simultaneous experiments in democracy playing out and I get to choose which version I want to live in. Is that scary or something to the rest of you?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
