Quote:
Originally Posted by Max2147
I always get ticked off when libertarians whine that our government needs to be more efficient. Our government is deliberately inefficient for a very good reason, and the filibuster is an important part of that.
|
As Aramike pointed out, we are usually referring to fiscal efficiency.
When it comes to legislation or other issues we simply prefer to limit the power of the state as much as possible. Imo, since the state does everything wrong and wastes a lot of money doing it, why let them do anything at all? The Constitution, when strictly adhered to, does a pretty good job of that, why not use it?
That is not to say that there cannot be states that have significant legislative power, we just want to make sure that that power is not centralized. When California's liberal agenda rips the state economy all to hell, people have the freedom to move to other states. When the Federal government ruins the economy or makes unwise policy decisions, the only choice is to move to another country. Granted, they are still free to move, but it is a lot more difficult.
Of course, decentralizing the government makes it more efficient in the legislative capacity as well. Representatives are closer to their constituency and can address their needs more effectively, without involving other states.
Like you, I also favor fillibustering because I think concentrations of power are dangerous. Is it such a leap to simply limit and decentralize state power so that they are not necessary? We wouldn't all have to pay for each other's policy mistakes, and we'd be free to adopt successful policy. It would be more effective, and more
efficient