Bronzebow post=18.73968.817638 said:
I disagree very strongly with this statement. Right now we are seeing the very effects of having a strong federal government. Lobbying from corporations is the very problem we're seeing. Having a weaker federal government is absolutely not a free reign for corporations to go willy nilly.
Case in point: If we had a weaker fed, the lawsuits against the telecoms that spied on us illegally would not have been pushed out.
People WOULD have a say in what corporations did through their checkbook. Company screws up? You don't go there anymore. They tank.
In your situation, who would enforce this walmart-forced-local, which in and of itself really isn't all that free market? It would be the local community and state, who should by design have more power than the federal government. That way, such a law would only negatively affect the area where it is enforced, not the whole country.
Once again, case in point: No child left behind.
I think you and I agree on a lot of things. You don't trust the government. I don't trust corporations. You'd have government streamlined. I'd have corporations abolished altogether, heh. I do not know what a smaller fed would look like today, and you really can't say that you do, either.
While it is true that much of the government is operating at the behest of the corporations, that is something that can be fixed with legislation. There is nothing we can do without government to hold corporations in check. You say we can simply stop going there, but a boycott of a business - especially one as large as these multinational corporations - would have to occur on an incredible scale. Millions of people would have to all come out and act on it. When do millions of people come together to do anything in this country? Oh yeah, when they VOTE. But that's about it.
Most people are ignorant. As long as these corporations are providing them with the goods and services they need (and many they don't), they'll continue to ignore disgraceful practices.
A smoker can be convinced that anti-smoking campaigns are a scheme by "Big Pharma" to sell more gum. Some small business owners crippled by Wal-Mart probably even SHOP at Wal-Mart. A vein of pure consumerist idiocy runs through the American public.
Now while a massive national boycott is completely unlikely, voting a politician out of office is much more feasible - and does happen at least once every election cycle. When has a corporation EVER gone out of business due to the mass opposition of customers to its business practices? Probably never.
As for reducing the fed and giving more power to the state and local governments, I'm skeptical of that, because I feel that people in certain areas NEED the grounding of a more national moral compass. Even if I lived in a state where things were proceeding as I liked, I would not want to hear about injustice going on in the neighboring state.
Following your argument to its inevitable conclusion, we'll end up with 50 separate countries, some of which would be bastions for racism, social injustice, and religious zealotry. If I felt I could trust the average citizen in the Bible Belt or in degenerate pockets of the midwest to do the right thing, then I'd trust them to have more power on a local level. But as it stands now, there are just too many morons in this country, and they need a centralized hand to rule them, lest they choke themselves with their own stupidity.
Side Note: NCLB = bullshit
Edit: Oh, and please elaborate on your point about how a smaller Fed and the telecom companies. I'm not certain what you're referring to, or how the outcome would've been different.
