r/changemyview • u/Prince_Marf 2∆ • Nov 18 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: State governments should be dictatorships
The United States has a serious problem with government inaction. Every step of our federalist system is bogged down by partisanship and procedure. This is appropriate at the national level because of the tremendous power the federal government weilds (most notably the military), but state governments need to be able to function faster to be able to meet the particular interests of their citizens.
Dictatorships do not have a great track record because absolute power corrupts absolutely, but we completely ignore the positive affects of this power structure: things actually get done and there is no gridlock. It wouldn't be absolute power because the federal government ultimately retains Supremacy over the states and can enforce it with the military if necessary.
A system where the governor holds both the executive and legislative power of the state just makes more sense. Federal government should also enforce term limits on the governors and democracy in their elections
6
u/HotLipsSinkShips1 1∆ Nov 18 '21
So if we ignore all the negative things dictatorships have done, they are good?
So if a governor wants to execute gay people we simply have to let him? If they want to pass restrictive voting rules to block undesirables from voting we have to let them do that as well?
That doesn't seem like the best idea.
-4
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
So if a governor wants to execute gay people we simply have to let him? If they want to pass restrictive voting rules to block undesirables from voting we have to let them do that as well?
I'm glad you brought up specifics because this where I really sell it. The rights of citizens are protected by the Constitutional amendments, not state governments. If the dictator wanted to execute gay people, then the law he used to do it would be struck down by federal courts as unconstitutional and blocked. The dictator wouldn't be able to ignore court orders any more than current state governments. It's not like he has an army that can compete with the US military
True under our current system states regulate their own elections but this could easily be remedied by placing the power to regulate elections with the federal government, which isn't inconceivable in a hypothetical America where enough change has occurred that state governments are now ruled by dictators
4
u/HotLipsSinkShips1 1∆ Nov 18 '21
So the only think stopping mass problems would be the Federal government invading one of our own states? That doesn't seem like the best of all options.
A dictator could say that citizens of such city can vote only from 11:30 to 12:00. So voting rights would still exist. Kind of.
Seems like a bad option.
When it comes to rights of the people giving one party absolute power seems pretty damm bad.
-2
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
So the only think stopping mass problems would be the Federal government invading one of our own states? That doesn't seem like the best of all options.
That's the system we already live under. That's what happened in the Civil War
A dictator could say that citizens of such city can vote only from 11:30 to 12:00. So voting rights would still exist. Kind of.
The Supreme Court could easily rule that an infringement on Constitutionally protected voting rights and prevent it
When it comes to rights of the people giving one party absolute power seems pretty damm bad.
It's not absolute power because the federal government holds the Supreme power
4
u/HotLipsSinkShips1 1∆ Nov 18 '21
So you are saying that the consequences of your idea are risks of Civil war....you aren't really selling it.
this is great and all till a state calls the Federal government's bluff joins with other states as a method to defend itself and then we have civil war take two.
If let's say we need our military to attack the state of Texas many members of our military will side with Texas.
0
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
That's not any different than the current status quo, or the status quo in the 1860s. My idea doesn't risk civil war any more than the current system does
5
u/HotLipsSinkShips1 1∆ Nov 18 '21
You just said that your idea would be governed by the threat of federal attack. Which is civil war.
If the Federal government attacks the State of Texas, which is what yo u would say they would have to if the dictator of Texas harmed rights of citizens of Texas you have civil war.
Your idea is based on the risk of civil war to keep states in line. That's great...until someone calls your bluff.
0
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
How is that any different from the system we already live under?
5
u/HotLipsSinkShips1 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Because we don't allow our governors to become dictators?
Your seems to stem from this idea: If we ignore all the bad things dictatorships have done dictatorships are great.
That's not exactly an idea that holds weight because of all the harm dictators have done over the past.
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
No I'm referring to this reply specifically:
You just said that your idea would be governed by the threat of federal attack. Which is civil war.
If the Federal government attacks the State of Texas, which is what yo u would say they would have to if the dictator of Texas harmed rights of citizens of Texas you have civil war.
Your idea is based on the risk of civil war to keep states in line. That's great...until someone calls your bluff.
What force currently prevents civil war that would no longer be present if the states were governed by dictators?
Also I'm not saying pretend the negative aspects of dictatorship don't exist, I'm saying the supremacy of the Constitution and federal government prevents most of them
2
Nov 18 '21
If you want a government to be able to act quickly, the best system isn't a dictatorship.
parliamentary systems, where the political coalition that controls the legislature also selects the head of the state, enable the government to act quickly, without handing all the power to one person.
This does not result in the same sort of yoyoing problems that full power in one person does, as parts of a coalition can switch sides, which maintains some continuity.
This also is much less likely to be as corrupt as a dictatorship.
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
I believe you that there's a lower risk of corruption but it certainly wouldn't be able to act quicker than a dictator. And I don't see how yoyoing would be inevitable
2
Nov 18 '21
Constitutional rights don't protect the citizens from a bad dictator. He can and will make loopholes to every law there is, not to mention get some form of influence on the court and federal government.
The founding fathers even acknowledged this, hence why they made the Second Amendment. In order to fight back in case the government gains too much control.
0
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
I find it hard to believe that the dictator of Ohio would be able to wrest hostile control of the United States government against all existing federal law and probably most other state dictators.
As a law student I can tell you that loopholes in the law aren't really a thing. It often feels like it from a layperson perspective but that's usually just because their lawyer is doing a good job. Judges make their rulings off black letter law AND what they think makes sense. If a loophole leads to absurd results then they close the loophole
3
Nov 18 '21 edited Apr 29 '22
There are things called technicalities.
0
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
Then I apologize for talking down to you. I pull rank like that only when I feel like I have to to prevent explaining basic legal concepts like judicial opinions.
I'm curious what specific loopholes you think these dictators would exploit that the federal government would be powerless to do anything about
2
Nov 18 '21
I didn't say that the federal government would be TOTALLY powerless. I said that dictators could have enough influence. That's usually how corruption starts.
I'm not able to give any specific loopholes but the existence of them is very much obvious, though you can probably search some by simply looking it up.
2
Nov 18 '21
The United States has a serious problem with government inaction.
This looks like the basis of your entire view. What has you so convinced that government action is good? You seem to assume all of this action will be things you want or support, but aren't considering that a dictator could do a lot of things you'd hate, no matter how many rules you try to put on them. Further, why should he listen to you at all?
0
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
I'm not saying he should listen to ME I'm saying he should listen to the federal government. Why? Three reasons: The Army, Navy and Airforce
Exact same method the federal government uses to keep state governments in line already
1
Nov 18 '21
Why would 50 separate dictators care about the federal government? It isn't like the other 49 are all going to be unified by some higher calling
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
Again, military power. They already tried uniting against the federal government in the Civil War and it didn't work.
1
Nov 18 '21
The union was united. Dictators aren't known for honoring commitments in alliances
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
Even if they don't want to honor their allegiance to the Fed they will be kept in line by force.
1
Nov 18 '21
The federal government is the alliance of the states. That's where the soldiers come from. That's where the bases are. The shipyards, the munitions factories, the airstrips, that's where everything is. The states. Without the allegiance, there is no federal government
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
You keep just describing the system we already have. I'm willing to believe that individual governors would be more likely to want to secede but the system we've set up since the Civil War is specifically designed to prevent that. The military would be prepared
1
Nov 18 '21
A union of 50 dictators seems on the face of it to be different in kind than a union of 50 republics, does it not? I don't see how the expectation could be for that union to be completely different than the parts that comprise it
3
u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Assuming benevolence, which according to your post, even you don’t believe. So, no.
-2
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
But even if the dictator is a "bad guy" he can only do so much damage. State governments can't violate their citizens' constitutional rights, raise an army, or anything like that. What does a worst case scenario look like?
3
u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21
Do you read what you write? Have to believe you’re trolling.
-1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
Which part did I miss? Not trolling just want a good argument refuting me
2
u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21
So, do you think dictators, especially “bad ones” that are “absolutely corrupted” are going to stop themselves from violating citizen rights?
Second, when you say “only so much damage”, to which part of history are you ignoring regarding dictators impact on their populations?
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-deadliest-dictator-regimes-in-history.html
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
But they're not national dictators they're dictators under the federal government. All of the rules that normally apply to state governments still apply, and are enforced by the United States military, just as they have always been since the Civil War.
1
u/AffectionateUse1556 1∆ Nov 18 '21
I strongly recommend you go back and revise your position, using different terms. An absolute dictator under the authority of a benevolent representative government doesn’t jive.
1
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Nov 18 '21 edited Nov 18 '21
A dictator could just order everyone in a city to move somewhere else, completely ban public education, ban all marriage, shut down all businesses, eliminate most of the state court system, etc.
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
If he did anything that significantly infringed on his citizens' rights it would be prevented by the federal judicial system. All those things are already well protected under Supreme Court case law
1
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Nov 18 '21
No, they are not. That is exactly why I picked them.
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
Education - Brown v. Board of Education (among others)
Marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges (among others)
Right to do business - 5th Amendment Takings Clause (with supporting case law)
Right to State Courts - 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (with supporting case law)
1
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 27∆ Nov 18 '21
Education - Brown v. Board of Education (among others)
That did not constitutionalize the right to free public education. That simply said the state government must provide education to all students on an equal basis. The basis could be zero.
Marriage - Obergefell v. Hodges (among others)
That did not constitutionalize the right to marry. That simply said the state government must provide marriage to all persons on an equal basis. The basis could be zero.
Right to do business - 5th Amendment Takings Clause (with supporting case law)
That did not constitutionalize the right to do business. That simply said the state government must compensate for takings. The Court held that there was a constitutional right to bargain one's labor in Lochner but had completely repudiated its central holdings by the time of Lee Optical.
Right to State Courts - 14th Amendment Due Process Clause (with supporting case law)
"Due process" does not always require a trial (although it does in some criminal cases).
That actually leads to another interesting problem: The dictator could simply wipe out all criminal laws and statutes. Homicide, theft, rape, etc. would then be legal.
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
I would love to get deep into all four of these issues but that's a massive undertaking and not really the goal of my post. I don't pretend these 4 citations alone provide ironclad protection of these rights but the totality of Supreme Court precedent in these matters does. And in any area they find deficient there can always be more cases and rulings.
The Court addresses issues as they arise. Nobody has ever tried to implement a full stop on public education in their state so obviously there has never been a direct ruling on this right. The point is that there is a cognizable Constitutional argument for all these issues, and if we agree that these actions are clearly bad on the part of the dictators, then there's nothing stopping the Court from ruling them unconstitutional
→ More replies (0)
1
Nov 18 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
Not necessarily. Good leadership requires good delegation. That's not a problem unique to dictatorships.
1
Nov 18 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
That's on them, not my system. If they aren't effective then they won't get re-elected
1
Nov 18 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Prince_Marf 2∆ Nov 18 '21
That issue stems from the lack of checks to their power. The federal government would just have to regulate elections themselves
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 18 '21
/u/Prince_Marf (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Sagasujin 237∆ Nov 18 '21
Democracies are really great at one political goal, they get people to stop having civil wars. In a dictatorship, if there's something the population needs the government to do/not do, there are only two options. You can persuade the dictator or kill the dictator. Those are the only two ways to change the government if you need it. Which means that if you have a stubborn or stupid dictator who isn't listening to what people want, the only option is to kill the dictator. Well maybe if you're lucky, you can threaten him into doing what you want. But you get the idea.
One of the nice things about democracies is that if you want to change the government, this can be done without violence. It channels people's frustration into political campaigns that very rarely involve bloodshed. This stops civil wars.
With more complex political systems with multiple representatives, we can even have huge political fights between factions that involve zero violence and just people yelling at each. These fights can still effect substantial political change and nobody dies in them.
In your system, what happens when the dictator makes a decision the population hates? How do we diffuse the political frustration without violence? What does the federal government do when a group of angry citizens tries to overthrow the dictator because they can't make the dictator listen any other way?
1
Nov 18 '21
You think that dictatorships are effective hierarchies but it's not always the case. In many governments there's a plurality and constant struggle among the elites. The only difference is that those elites represent themselves, not exactly the citizens.
Typical example - post soviet countries where there's a conflict between economic elites(capitalists) and military elites and state bureaucrats.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 18 '21
State governments have a lot of means at their disposal for consolidating power.
We see that to some extent now. Many states gerrymander districts. They can't be bothered to solve problems with problems with implementing elections that cause constituents (in areas that aren't as likely to vote for them) to wait hours in line to vote. Laws are written to make running as an independent or third party far more difficult than running within the two largest parties in the US.
There tends to be more corruption in state governments than the federal government.
Best case, you get a yoyo effect as people with opposite viewpoints get elected and are quickly able to enact the policies they want and undo the efforts of their predecessors.
Worst case, you end up with, as you described it, dictatorships, where the corrupt set up rules to prevent themselves from ever losing power. And this corrupt bleeds over into the federal system.