I didn't see this thread in its first go 'round but I'm glad it came back. Lots of food for thought.

I'm also grateful that Hubby detailed his thinking- for the first time I got a good idea of the conservative's thesis. I apologize for not grasping it before.

If I understand it correctly: The conservative (And I am NOT referring to the neo-conservative) sincerely would like to have almost all taxes collected from the people to go to the state/county/city in which s/he lives. The s/c/c then would allocate the monies to serve the over-all community.

The federal government, on the other hand, would receive only enough money from the people to finesse diplomacy among the nations and in the event to make war.

Sounds simple enough, and I can see its appeal. But surely it is a limited view of what can work. Among the limitations, I should think, is that the states are not equal geographically, climaticly, and therefore not financially equal. We already have 'poor' states, which I think is a disgrace. Would we want to institute and legitimize those variances for all?

Even aside from the obvious, would it not detract from the whole idea of union?

It just occurred to me: This is what the European Union is attempting. If I understand it, their thesis is that each signatory will keep its unique character within itself but assign the greater needs to the ruling body which will then work for the greatest good for all.

Am I on the right track?