You're putting words in my mouth.
JJR512 said:
you believe that no cross-jurisdictional assistance should take place.
Where did you get that idea?
I didn't get that idea from anywhere. I was asking you to tell me that that is what you believe. Going back several posts, understand that the point I am trying to make is that, in my opinion, there should be a national standard for EMS so that EMS agencies can help out other EMS agencies in emergenices when needed. A national standard implies that there is a national body to define, refine, maintain, uphold, and teach that standard. Clearly, this is not included in your "roads, stamps, and armies" limitation on the national government. What I am trying to accomplish by making this point is to get you to admit that perhaps there are other things the national government maybe should be involved in other than just "stamps, roads, and armies". Alternatively, if you continue to hold fast to the "stamps, roads, and armies"-only mindset, then I want you to admit that you are completely fine with the concept of EMS agencies not helping each other out, even though it means your loved ones, the people you care about, might get low-quality emergency service or no emergency service at all.
On to your next post...
Regulations are important because we know that without them, people will cut corners to make an extra buck, and that will compromise safety and health. Perhaps even our economic stability. Personally, I am glad that there are safety standards that make it pretty damned difficult for a person to accidentally fall into an industrial meat grinder. When I order ground chuck, I want ground chuck, not ground Chuck. And I do not care if the power to set and enforce these regulations exists at the national, state, or local level, as long as my ground cow is free of ground human. However, it seems that because meat can come from anywhere in the nation, it might make the most sense to put the power to regulate the meat industry at the national level so it can apply equally throughout the nation. It might get pretty difficult (which translates to expensive) for any single slaughterhouse and meat packer to worry about complying with the different regulations of fifty states.
Gun laws are the easy way out for politicians. I understand what they're trying to do but we both know that gun laws really only affect the good people. You won't get any argument from me that gun laws are truly solving the problems that they are ostensibly meant to solve.
Vehicle registration and property taxes do not change the fact that you own the property (assuming that you truly own it in the first place, that it's fully paid for and not technically owned by a bank or financing company). They are just ways for the government to fund itself. And, before you write what I know is going through your mind right now, let me just say that of course I understand that if the government was smaller, it would take less money to run and taxes and fees would be less. I would not debate that; it's a simple fact.
Vehicle registration fees are along the lines of what I was
actually talking about in my original post. Put aside for the moment the issue of how big the government is or should be. Let's just assume for the moment that it is the size that it is. In my opinion, vehicle registration fees are a
good thing because the fee is targeted at the people to whom the service applies. The DMV costs a certain amount of money to run. The bulk of this funding should not come from general taxes, in my opinion, because not everybody owns a vehicle, so non-vehicle-owners shouldn't have to pay for a service related to vehicles.
The question, if you're about to ask it, of if we need a DMV at all is, like just about everything else you've brought up, really a topic for another thread because it doesn't have anything to do with what I started this thread about, which is how to fund and organize the
current government.
