Gamethread: Bobcats vs Bulls 04/11 7:30p WGN

[BigPete]

I completely agree. In fact thats the only thing the state can do is make more things illegal or required within the state, they cant really circumvent federal law when it comes to expanding freedoms, so wtf is the point?

To make social isolationists feel better. There is a large part of the population that does not want to be screwed with by Big Brother and the Fed goon squad that they all fear is running around in the shadows. They believe that if they have direct access to policy makers and legislators (at the local and state level) that it will be easier to influence laws and regulations. While this may be true at a city or village council meeting, the effect lessons at the state and national level. The two places that control your taxes and have the ability to incarcerate you.



It makes sense, but it would be so much more efficient if all 300+ million of us played the same game by the same rule book in all matters.

 

[TSD]

To make social isolationists feel better. There is a large part of the population that does not want to be screwed with by Big Brother and the Fed goon squad that they all fear is running around in the shadows. They believe that if they have direct access to policy makers and legislators (at the local and state level) that it will be easier to influence laws and regulations. While this may be true at a city or village council meeting, the effect lessons at the state and national level. The two places that control your taxes and have the ability to incarcerate you.



It makes sense, but it would be so much more efficient if all 300+ million of us played the same game by the same rule book in all matters.

That should essentially make repubs in illinois happy. We could abolish state government, and stop the cycle of this state acting like it is only comprised of Chicago.

 

[supraman]

Which in my opinion is just one more really good reason to simplify everything and have more national governance of things. Why is it socialism if the federal government regulates all things related to driving a car but not when that the state of IL does it? (that was just one simple example - please look past the details and into the greater meaning)

Yeah that hasn't had bad consequences or anything.

 

[LordKOTL]

The thing of State vs. Federal law IMHO has to take into account the feasiblity of control on a state vs. federal level. Some laws could and should be controlled on the state level. Others, it makes no sense to do so.



I think certain "of age" laws need to be controlled at the federal level rather than the state level. Same thing with legal substance laws. If one state raises their legal driving age to 21 (hypothetically) and bans tobacco, does that mean a certified 18-20 year old trucker cannot transport a load of cigarettes through the state with the prohibition and the company has to go around it? Or what if they can't air-freight tobacco across the state's airspace? Stuff like that hurts the economy.



Some stuff could and should be controlled at the state level--like say building codes. I would never live in Oregon, California, Alaska, or Washington in a building designed with Illinois codes with respect to how well it fairs in an earthquake, and likewise, why would Illinois waste money in design to create a building that can withstand an earthquake that in all probability, would never happen within the building's lifetime?



Keep the laws relevant to who they pertain to.

 

[BigPete]

Yeah that hasn't had bad consequences or anything.

Sure, when you have an autocracy. Keep elected representatives that generate legislation, just get rid of duplicitous rule of law.