[traditionalist]

I can't do this justice, but let me ask, what is your preferred size for a state?

I support the traditional Christian doctrine of subsidiarity: a matter should be handled on the most local level possible. Where it is impossible to handle a matter locally, it should be referred to a higher level, all the way up to a national level, which seems to be the optimal place to have the highest level of government.

So to answer your question, there should be a federal government for the nation, in the traditional sense of the word, but the role of this government should be minimal. Then there should governments at the provincial, county, municipal, and neighborhood levels, each with increasingly more involvment in the citizen's daily life.

[JohnGalt]

Well, we are in (general) agreement but I am still curious why you did not recognize that I am merely the libertarian version of the system you outlined.

[tpaine]

--- I reject the notion that there is such a thing as a right to vice; only a right to virtue. There is no right to drug abuse, no right to pronography, no right to prostitution, no right to to adultary, no right to fornication, no right to sodomy, etc.
The state is perfectly within its competence in restricting these things.
The question is one of prudence: does prohibiting such things help or hurt the common good? The answer to that is sometimes yes and sometimes no. ----

----- there should governments at the provincial, county, municipal, and neighborhood levels, each with increasingly more involvment in the citizen's daily life.
-traditionalist-

---

We are in general agreement
-john gault-

---

I can support that level of "sequestering."
316 -mrleroy-

---

Gentlemen, this republic is in serious trouble if your views are in any way representitive of todays 'conservatives'.

Yall are advocating a type of communitarianism, imo..