Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We Need States
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 63 (679679)
11-15-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
11-13-2012 10:29 AM


... there is no such thing as an issue whose natural scope is, say, exactly no larger or smaller than a rectangular area the size of Wyoming.
Would you like to expand this argument? Is there any such thing as an issue whose natural scope is the borders of the USA?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2012 10:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 63 (679682)
11-15-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
11-13-2012 2:47 PM


Re: Legal confusion
But I don't see why some hick in rural Roseburg, OR should have any say in what is legal in Portland, by the same reasoning. Why does it make sense to group residents of Portland (population 600k, primary industry: semiconductors) and Roseburg (population 20k, primary industry: forestry), but not the residents of Portland and Seattle (population 600k, primary industry: software)? If you don't have any answer but "they're not in the same state", then you've accepted my premise that states represent no natural scope.
But if you put it that way, it's actually good that there's no "natural scope".
It is good that because of the artificial boundaries of a state (let's say Texas) the interests of an aeronautics engineer should be tied to the interests of a cattle rancher, and vice versa. It would be harder if they were both citizens of the Blobbly Thing Under Canada.
It is good that people with potentially conflicting interests should be stuck together and work out their differences.
I don't see ... I mean, in your new version, how would it all work, and what would Senators be for? Could I become the Senator For Being Able To Program Computers Really Well And Also Being Better Than You At Math?
I don't say that the present solution is perfect. But it does bind together people of different interests together. You think that that's a bad thing; I think that it's good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2012 2:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 1:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 63 (679690)
11-15-2012 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Jon
11-14-2012 10:17 PM


Re: The Burden
I don't see your states "do stuff" as an insurmountable obstacle. Under the constitution, there are many things that the feds do not do because they are not empowered to do them. The constitution leaves policing powers to local authorities. So states manage education, local crime fighting, intrastate commerce, etc.
Historically we had states before we had a union. If that were not the case, there is no reason why policing powers could not flow from the federal government to regional managers under federal oversight.
In short it is not persuasive to simply look at what states do now and to insist that those functions would not be carried out without states. We know that local and federal governments would pick up the slack. What is of interest are the ramifications of having the federal government involved in so much.
State governments are no guarantee against tyrrany. Historically we've seen lots of cases where federal law was the only insurer of personal freedom against the states.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Jon, posted 11-14-2012 10:17 PM Jon has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 63 (679728)
11-15-2012 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
11-15-2012 8:56 AM


Re: Legal confusion
It is good that because of the artificial boundaries of a state (let's say Texas) the interests of an aeronautics engineer should be tied to the interests of a cattle rancher, and vice versa.
If it's good that the interests of disparate, potentially even competing groups should be tied together, then it follows that it's better to tie more together. Therefore lets tie them maximally together as citizens of the Blobby Thing Under Canada, and dispense with states.
I note that you don't make an argument that the interests of cattle ranchers should not be tied to any more or less other groups than those who reside within the borders of Texas. But why is that? Why should the ranchers' interests be tied to engineers in Texas but not in New Mexico?
I don't see ... I mean, in your new version, how would it all work, and what would Senators be for?
They'd be for nothing, because we'd get rid of them. No Senate. Every US citizen would have equal representation in Congress.
But it does bind together people of different interests together.
So too would they be bound under the "no-states" system, as citizens of the Blobby Thing Under Canada.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 8:56 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 4:19 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 35 of 63 (679760)
11-15-2012 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
11-15-2012 1:25 PM


Local Patriotism
f it's good that the interests of disparate, potentially even competing groups should be tied together, then it follows that it's better to tie more together. Therefore lets tie them maximally together as citizens of the Blobby Thing Under Canada, and dispense with states.
But I'm not just talking about their interest actually being tied together, I'm talking about them feeling that they are tied together. In such a case, the more local and specific the association is, the better. In principle, I love all humanity, but this is a weak feeling that is difficult to do. I love the USA better, and am fonder still of the great state of Nevada. My family is still more important to me --- my conservative Catholic brother-in-law means more to me than all the other conservative Catholics in the BTUC put together. Now, you may say that it is arbitrary and illogical for me to care more about him than some random guy in China, to which I will reply that human beings are arbitrary and illogical. The way to get people with disparate opinions and interests to care about one another is to make them identify as being part of a group, and the smaller the group is, the better it works. (See, for example, the outpouring of emotion over Buzsaw's death. None of us would have cared a damn if the first thing we knew about it was reading his obituary: we care because he was one of us.) Uniting people on a state level and saying: "You're all Texans" exploits this fact about people.
So my answer to this ...
I note that you don't make an argument that the interests of cattle ranchers should not be tied to any more or less other groups than those who reside within the borders of Texas. But why is that? Why should the ranchers' interests be tied to engineers in Texas but not in New Mexico?
... is BECAUSE WE CAN. Local patriotism is a thing. The software engineer in Austin does feel more of a connection to cattle ranchers in Texas than he does to cattle-ranchers elsewhere. The abolition of states would not make him feel a universal love towards all ranchers, it would make him more indifferent to their condition.
This is just a fact about how people work. You may condemn it as irrational, but you'd have a harder job arguing that it isn't true.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 1:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 4:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 63 (679764)
11-15-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dr Adequate
11-15-2012 4:19 PM


Re: Local Patriotism
But I'm not just talking about their interest actually being tied together, I'm talking about them feeling that they are tied together.
I gotta say, I feel like "American" is a brand name with a lot of strong, positive connotations for, you know, Americans. Much more so than anybody's identity as a resident of their state. (Am I a "Marylandian"? "Marylander"? I don't know and I don't give a shit.) Texans are probably the exception there, but frankly deflating the Texas ego would be just one additional benefit of my no-states, no-counties total reorganization of the country.
I love the USA better, and am fonder still of the great state of Nevada.
And that makes you a... Nevadian? Nevadar?
The software engineer in Austin does feel more of a connection to cattle ranchers in Texas than he does to cattle-ranchers elsewhere.
Well, I've been to Austin, and my experience was that the software guys there didn't give two shits about cattle ranchers in Texas or anywhere, and they felt a much stronger kinship to their colleagues in Seattle and Silicon Valley than they did about a bunch of out-state hayseeds, unless those hayseeds also lived in or around Austin, because under those circumstances they all rooted for the Longhorns.
And that's where the majority of your local patriotism comes from, football teams and cities. Still around, under my no-state solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 4:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 5:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 37 of 63 (679774)
11-15-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
11-15-2012 4:32 PM


Re: Local Patriotism
I gotta say, I feel like "American" is a brand name with a lot of strong, positive connotations for, you know, Americans. Much more so than anybody's identity as a resident of their state. (Am I a "Marylandian"? "Marylander"? I don't know and I don't give a shit.)
Well, I guess it's just something you don't feel. But a lot of people do. I know that I do. I am proud to live in the Battle Born State, defined, as you would point out, by arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
I am irrationally proud of this, even though my huge enormous brain tells me that I personally did not take part in the Civil War. (If you don't know why Nevada is called the "Battle-Born State", look it up.)
But I am irrationally proud of this. Many people are irrationally proud of their states. If you don't feel that way, then I guess you don't feel that way.
---
And I guess this brings me on to the one crucial point that would wreck your scheme of abolishing the states, which is that a huge overwhelming majority of people would be against it happening. We like having states. We just enjoy it. It is good in itself, without any practical considerations being figured in. You point out that the existence of state legislatures costs us money. Well, so do libraries. I feel that it is a price well paid, because we want states and libraries to exist.
(Am I a "Marylandian"? "Marylander"? I don't know and I don't give a shit.)
Ah, well, obviously that's because Maryland is crap. Of course you guys couldn't feel any local patriotism living in a shithole like Maryland populated by a bunch of idiots like Marylanders ...
... if that sentence, which was completely insincere, made you even a tiny bit annoyed, then you feel a little bit like I do.
And that makes you a... Nevadian? Nevadar?
You know perfectly well that it's Nevadan. You may not know that if you pronounce the first "a" in "Nevada" long rather than short we want to kick you in the groin. This is what I'm talking about. Human beings are in fact irrational and inconsistent. Let us therefore organize our system of government to exploit that fact rather than to deny it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 4:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 63 (679788)
11-15-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
11-14-2012 3:43 PM


Which they, by definition, cannot do. When Federal power conflicts with state power, the Supremacy Clause is clear - Federal power wins. State power is supreme only in those areas where the Federal government has no power, and is therefore a nonentity. But that's determined by the Constitution, not by the states.
The scope of said Constitution has been permitted as much as the States have allowed. And that same Constitution actually makes it clear that a large-enough body of States has the Constitutional authority to overrule the Federal government in any matter whatsoever by simply amending the Constitution to allow such an overruling.
(States spend millions of dollars every year simply to maintain the functions of their governments.)
Yes, the same governments that possess the collective, Constitutional, and permitted power to completely abolish all aspects of the Federal government besides the Senate were it to act in ways deemed detrimental to interests of the relatively autonomous States and the people therein.
I suppose when you've already broken both your legs the next logical thing to do is dislocate your shoulders and poke our your eyes.
I have no response except to note that this is not an argument of any kind.
Of course it is. You have argued that because States have no power to act in their interestssomething you just made up, all their other powers should be taken as well by abolishing States altogether. And this is a crap argument.
Would your feelings on this matter be the same if Canada and Russia were to invade and overtake the U.S. as a nation? Our country's sovereignty being forcibly taken, would we be better off bringing the process 'to fruition' by abolishing the U.S. Or better off attempting to overthrow the oppressive force that has stolen our independence so that we may preserve the existence of our Nation?
When a man has broken both your legs, the next logical thing to do is not to let him bash in your skull; if your political sovereignty has been takenagain, a claim about the States that is not true, there is nothing sensible about bringing the process 'to fruition' and allowing a complete end to your political existence unless, of course, you are a traitor to the political entity in question, a sympathizer with the oppressor's cause.
Is that you, Crash?
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Not finished...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2012 3:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 8:43 PM Jon has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 63 (679797)
11-15-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Jon
11-15-2012 7:26 PM


The scope of said Constitution has been permitted as much as the States have allowed.
This seems to completely ignore what I've said, and is false to boot. The scope of the Constitution is the entire nation of the United States of America, and if states would like to suddenly assert powers that the Federal government has claimed, they can't - they can try to have the Constitution amended to move those powers from the Federal level to the states, but that process begins with the Federal government. The Supremacy Clause - which you completely ignore - makes it clear that it is the Federal government and its Constitution, not the states, which determines where Federal power ends and state power begins.
(States spend millions of dollars every year simply to maintain the functions of their governments.)
Yes, the same governments that possess the collective, Constitutional, and permitted power to completely abolish all aspects of the Federal government besides the Senate were it to act in ways deemed detrimental to interests of the relatively autonomous States and the people therein.
This is an utter non sequitur.
You have argued that because States have no power to act in their interests
I've not argued that the States have no power to act in their interests. That would be an enormously stupid thing to have claimed, so it's an enormously stupid thing for you to have claimed I've claimed.
Would your feelings on this matter be the same if Canada and Russia were to invade and overtake the U.S. as a nation?
Why would they be the same? I'm an American, not a Canadian or a Russian. I'm not talking about having a foreign power invade the United States. Where did you get the idiotic notion that I was?
And anyway, sure, I'd be supremely irritated by the US government falling to a foreign power, and probably more or less irritated depending on what power it was. My children would grow up thinking it was completely normal - as did the children and grandchildren of the citizens of the nations that the United States invaded. This is just an argument that change is irritating. I agree, but that's part of my argument against states, not the argument for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Jon, posted 11-15-2012 7:26 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 11-15-2012 9:50 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 63 (679799)
11-15-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Dr Adequate
11-14-2012 11:54 PM


Re: Legal confusion
Abolishing beta testing doesn't ensure that your final release is of final-release quality.
I'm not talking about abolishing beta-testing. I'm talking about abolishing subjecting everyone to it. What kind of "experiment" do you run without any controls?
If we abolish legislative experimentation by the states, that doesn't mean that all the national legislation would be tried and tested. It would mean that it was untried and untested.
Even if that were true, your argument flounders on the fact that in both practice and theory it doesn't ever work this way. State legislation almost never "graduates" to the Federal level because of the Tenth Amendment separation of state and Federal power. The only example of this promotion-to-Federal-from-state transition that I can think of is Romneycare/Obamacare, and that was hardly a situation where Massachusetts worked Romneycare over until all the bugs were gone, and then sent it up to the US Congress.
How, for example, would it be less "random and experimental" for the Blobby Thing Under Canada to legalize marijuana then for the state of Colorado to do so?
Yes, it would be much less random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2012 11:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2012 9:15 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 10:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 63 (679803)
11-15-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
11-15-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Legal confusion
State legislation almost never "graduates" to the Federal level because of the Tenth Amendment separation of state and Federal power.
That's correct, but a state is to adopt what works in other states if that solution fits. And the citizens can make that decision with a lot more practical information. And American citizens are free to move about to situations of their liking.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 8:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 63 (679809)
11-15-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
11-15-2012 8:43 PM


The States Giveth
The scope of the Constitution is the entire nation of the United States of America, and if states would like to suddenly assert powers that the Federal government has claimed, they can't - they can try to have the Constitution amended to move those powers from the Federal level to the states, but that process begins with the Federal government.
The Federal government exists in its current form entirely because the States allowed it to come into existence; and it is allowed to exist in its current form entirely because the States have yet to dismantle ita power which they fully possess.
The States giveth and the States can taketh away.
The Supremacy Clause - which you completely ignore - makes it clear that it is the Federal government and its Constitution, not the states, which determines where Federal power ends and state power begins.
The Supremacy Clause is just another example of a power that the States allow the Federal government to have and which the States have every authority to revoke.
"Yes, the laws you pass shall be supreme and binding on us; unless we decide that they shouldn't be."
The entire fact that the States possess the ability to alter and even dismantle the Federal government at will means that the idea of the Federal government having real and unquestionably binding power over the States is just a mirage, since it is the States which possess the actual power to determine how the Federal government behaves and which powers it has. Again...
The States giveth and the States can taketh away.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 8:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2012 8:10 AM Jon has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 43 of 63 (679810)
11-15-2012 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
11-14-2012 11:37 PM


United States of America would be a funny name for a place with no states.
Maybe we could go with something simple.
Merika.
Or United Townships, Borroughs, Villages, Cities and Municipalities of America.
UTBVCMA
Kind of has a ring to it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2012 11:37 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2012 8:15 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 44 of 63 (679811)
11-15-2012 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
11-15-2012 8:59 PM


Re: Legal confusion
I'm not talking about abolishing beta-testing. I'm talking about abolishing subjecting everyone to it. What kind of "experiment" do you run without any controls?
Um ... but if you have different states with different policies, you do have controls. Maine does one thing, New Hampshire does another. It's if we have a single national policy that we have an experiment without controls.
Yes, it would be much less random.
Perhaps you could expand on this. Y'know, by typing some more words which might hypothetically justify it?
The only example of this promotion-to-Federal-from-state transition that I can think of is Romneycare/Obamacare ...
Hmm, let's think. The abolition of slavery. Votes for women. Freedom of religion. Old age pensions. If you want me to go on, this could take a while, so let's just sum it up by saying "every good idea that anyone's ever had".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 8:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 11-17-2012 8:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 63 (680032)
11-17-2012 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jon
11-15-2012 9:50 PM


Re: The States Giveth
The Federal government exists in its current form entirely because the States allowed it to come into existence; and it is allowed to exist in its current form entirely because the States have yet to dismantle ita power which they fully possess.
And I guess my point is that they don't - what the states created, they have no legal power to dissolve. The Federal government, as created, is no less legally permanent than the states themselves. This legal fact was, after all, what started the Civil War.
The Supremacy Clause is just another example of a power that the States allow the Federal government to have and which the States have every authority to revoke.
Not without amending the US Constitution. There are only two ways to amend the US Constitution, and they both require the participation and therefore the assent of the Federal government. There's no way for the states to unilaterally contract any Federal power except by the willing participation of the Federal government. Even if the states bring suit to do so, that suit won't affect the Federal government until the Supreme Court has ruled - and there's your Federal participation in the process.
Sorry, you're just flat-out wrong in a way that even a 9th-grade civics class would have shown you. We don't live in the "states rights" country you think we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jon, posted 11-15-2012 9:50 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 11-17-2012 8:55 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 54 by AdminPhat, posted 11-18-2012 12:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024