I am not disagreeing with the premise; I agree with it, wholeheartedly. My question though, is how do you address the idea of the cure killing the patient. It took decades to get where we are and an argument is made that in order to maintain the Republic things must be rolled back incrementally, rather that in one fell swoop. For example, immediately do away with any of the social safety nets (aka largess) and there would be a 100% guarantee of violent backlash that could (would in my opinion) destroy the Republic.
“My question though, is how do you address the idea of the cure killing the patient. It took decades to get where we are and an argument is made that in order to maintain the Republic things must be rolled back incrementally, rather that in one fell swoop. For example, immediately do away with any of the social safety nets (aka largess) and there would be a 100% guarantee of violent backlash that could (would in my opinion) destroy the Republic.”
Work with the states to pick it up the control and authority. Let them know what is going to happen, let them start the process of determining what is best for their citizens. Different states will react in different ways.
If the issue is such an important one then the states can start an amendment process to give the control and authority to the federal government.
Lets use two examples - alcohol and healthcare.
Alcohol: For some reason the states decided that federal control over alcohol was so important that an amendment was passed giving this authority to the federal government - enter prohibition. For some reason, it was determined that the states should take back the control of alcohol so another amendment was passed. This is the proper and legal way to handle giving authority to the federal government. There was no “penumbra” found in the constitution. And there was no illegal use of “interstate commerce” to justify federal control over alcohol.
Healthcare: The illegal taking of federal control to force people to buy a product! LOL! So stupid. So illegal! So tyrannical. Tyranny.
I agree that it took decades to get where we are; however, the majority of what the Federal government is doing should rest in the hands of the states.
Let’s go back to the Civil War (aka the War of Northern Aggression). On the surface it was about slavery, which was starting to wane; however, it was everything about the consolidation of power at a Federal level and the removal of States Rights.
Yes there would be a cacophony louder than the snowflakes raging in the streets if the government, in one fell swoop, ended all entitlements. But if we continue to succumb to the tyranny and allow the loss of liberty, we cease to exist as the land of the free.