|
Lotka Volterra posted:I was looking forward to communism because of the gulags and mass killings, this isn't what I asked for. The first lesson of Communism is that we cannot always get what we want.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
Avalanche posted:Ok... ok.... california and the southwest would have a lot of trouble with water and bulk foodstuffs. california makes a lot of high end food like fruit and nuts but not just raw calories the northwest would be pretty good, strong export economy there from timber to aerospace. not too many people to feed internally the midwest would have to parley their ownership of boring ag resources, fossil fuels, and a ridiculous nuclear arsenal for industrial goods and technical assistance and eventually migrant labor the south would be alright, it has a balanced set of resources and a larger share of military facilities. a bit too prone to natural disasters tho, so could suffer without federal assistance the northeast would lean heavily on europe, and would need a lot of help to feed their large urban population the upper midwest/old northwest/rustbelt would want to sell fresh water and try to restart as many factories as possible the biggest losers would be the coasts, as they rely more heavily on being national centers of fire, insurance, and real estate employment. more rural areas which just produce commodities would be big winners. texas might be the biggest winner of all, ironically - texas is huge and arguably self sufficient
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
probably the southeast and northwest are self sufficient. southwest/cali and northeast can't feed themselves, the north lacks fossil fuels, and the midwest isn't developed enough to have its own internal industrial economy
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Bow before your new Minnesotan overlords, Dakotas,
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:probably the southeast and northwest are self sufficient. southwest/cali and northeast can't feed themselves, the north lacks fossil fuels, and the midwest isn't developed enough to have its own internal industrial economy The north has a lot of hydro and nuclear power proportionately as well as significant refinery capacity. Also there's still a decent grip of coal to spread around and a bunch of decent natural gas fields, and a lot of coal if you include places like Montana and Wyoming in the North.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
I just want to live in Cascadia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The north has a lot of hydro and nuclear power proportionately as well as significant refinery capacity. Also there's still a decent grip of coal to spread around and a bunch of decent natural gas fields, and a lot of coal if you include places like Montana and Wyoming in the North. in what possible universe would anyone ever include anything west of iowa in the north
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
I could see a DC-NY-Chicago triangle sort of forming one state. The great lakes need the St Lawrence and so on. Plus that gives decent agricultural land. Also, don't count out the Northeast (or parts of it) either joining Canada or allowing parts of canada to join with it to form a slightly different shape. Toronto, Ottowa, and Montreal are all right there. My question is where does Colorado end up? Seems like we'd be pretty hosed and left out to dry with the south/plainstates/greater texas. Colorado is an island of fun in an ocean of suck. edit: parts of utah and wyoming are ok, mostly the places where humans don't live. edit2: If the US broke up it'd just be north/south/west/texas? the plain states need the city states for commerce and access to the Mississippi which would be contested by Texas and the South. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:My question is where does Colorado end up? Seems like we'd be pretty hosed and left out to dry with the south/plainstates/greater texas. Colorado is an island of fun in an ocean of suck. It's obvious that we would end up going with the Western coastal states. Colorado isn't the Midwest, isn't really the southwest, and the feel of its biggest metro is more reminiscent of California than anywhere else. I could see Utah trying to gently caress that up, though
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:I could see Utah trying to gently caress that up, though Utah and the South can go die in nuclear hellfire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
What if California Annexed Mexico? Yea suck it Texas. If you think border control is a problem now, wait until we start paying border jumpers $7/day to go gently caress with your poo poo. In 1 generation, you might as well consider yourself a protectorate of California. Cultural Victory!
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 09:07
|
|
|
A goodcase study in this kind of federalism is the fight over the indirect election of senators near the end of the gilded age. Which is also something that constitution humping libertarians occasionally advocate. The wayitworked was that smaller fish need a smaller bribe so moving government to a smaller scale makes corruption easier not harder. im phoneposting rinow so I can't show them to you but there are plenty of political cartoons and commentary on this subject. Itseems like an easy fix but it makes the problem worse not better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 10:11
|
|
|
To try to address the OP directly, there are multiple instances throughout US history where the "bad poo poo happening" was caused by state governments, and then it fell to the federal government to try and clean it up. Perhaps the most popular examples of these are the slavery issue leading up to the American Civil War and the Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act. The premise of having a smaller, more localized government in order to reduce corruption/gerrymandering/special interest lobbying is disagreeable because it is not supported by historical precedent, and even by current events (see: Gay Marriage having to be sorted out state-by-state).
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
OP, you are inferring causation from correlation. That your federal government is ineffectual and corrupt is happening at the same time as many social ills, but the former is not the cause of the latter, nor is there reason why you should think it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:To try to address the OP directly, there are multiple instances throughout US history where the "bad poo poo happening" was caused by state governments, and then it fell to the federal government to try and clean it up. This argument is incredibly weak- there hasn't been any complaints here that gay marriage is happening because the states are pushing it through. All this 'fed rights' and 'states rights' stuff is just nonsense like it has always been. People want what they want, arguments like 'states rights' has been consistently used by both sides when it suits them and discarded when it does not. Using gay marriage to prove your point is utterly bizarre I don't think you thought that one through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Like if states rights all of a sudden exclusively favored progressive causes any opposition here would evaporate instantaneously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
tsa posted:This argument is incredibly weak- there hasn't been any complaints here that gay marriage is happening because the states are pushing it through. All this 'fed rights' and 'states rights' stuff is just nonsense like it has always been. People want what they want, arguments like 'states rights' has been consistently used by both sides when it suits them and discarded when it does not. Using gay marriage to prove your point is utterly bizarre I don't think you thought that one through. Gay marriage is happing in most places via federal court decisions as I understand it. Edit: Twenty six out of thirty seven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Yeah the patchwork 'State's RIghts' solution to gay marriage is a bureaucratic and human rights mess waiting to happen. Left to their own devices you would have people who are married in one state who would basically have their union annulled if they moved to another. The Federal Government is stepping in at this point and saying that a marriage license is a marriage license nationwide (of course the other libertarian solution is to have secular 'licenses' issued by a judge that aren't called marriages, you are only married if you have a holy person agree to perform the ceremony). The goalposts for the right are now being moved to firing/discrimination against being out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Liberals are such hypocrites: they'll support Obama just because he is black, but they won't support Herman Cain, who is also black.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Marriage should be banned altogether since it's a religious thing and we have a little thing called "separation of church and state" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like if states rights all of a sudden exclusively favored progressive causes any opposition here would evaporate instantaneously. This isn't true at all. States rights is problematic because human and civil rights issues shouldn't be left up to states to decide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like if states rights all of a sudden exclusively favored progressive causes any opposition here would evaporate instantaneously. No it wouldn't because that wouldn't change the historical fact that the Confederation was a broken dysfunctional clusterfuck of a country, and the CSA was too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This isn't true at all. States rights is problematic because human and civil rights issues shouldn't be left up to states to decide. That's a pretty good argument for making the UN an actual governing body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This isn't true at all. Literally everything to do with marijuana in the past 4 years or so is directly "states flaunting federal authority and getting cheered on by progressives".
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:That's a pretty good argument for making the UN an actual governing body. Not necessarily. The difference is that US Federal Government actually exists, and has centuries of track record to look at when asking "Should this governing body exist and enforce human rights standards on its member states?" The UN as a functional government is entirely theoretical, and could be an unworkable shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Literally everything to do with marijuana in the past 4 years or so is directly "states flaunting federal authority and getting cheered on by progressives". Nope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Literally everything to do with marijuana in the past 4 years or so is directly "states flaunting federal authority and getting cheered on by progressives". Those people aren't cheering for the return of the Articles of Confederation. They just want the Feds to end a specific lovely policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
tsa posted:Like if states rights all of a sudden exclusively favored progressive causes any opposition here would evaporate instantaneously. Hell of a thing if it ever happened. The theoretical "well states rights is okay because it might be used for good sometime" flies in the face of history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
And they're not nullifying federal drug laws. They're just refusing to duplicate some federal laws, which is a common thing states do all the time and isn't some hypocritical neo-Confederate act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And they're not nullifying federal drug laws. They're just refusing to duplicate some federal laws, which is a common thing states do all the time and isn't some hypocritical neo-Confederate act. Is it possible to nullify a federal drug law, and how would you do it if so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Is it possible to nullify a federal drug law, and how would you do it if so? Same way South Carolina threatened to nullify the tariff. Arrest any federal agent who tried to enforce it, and secede if the federal government tries to compel them to stop. So, you know, not "liberals sometimes have differing state and federal laws, what hypocrites herpderp"
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Same way South Carolina threatened to nullify the tariff. Arrest any federal agent who tried to enforce it, and secede if the federal government tries to compel them to stop. So if the feds hadn't fought South Carolina when they nullified the tariff (like how the feds aren't fighting Colorado now), it wouldn't be nullification?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Colorado isn't threatening to secede or stopping federal agents from enforcing the law like South Carolina planned to do. The decision not to enforce the laws is Obama's and if he changed his mind, Colorado wouldn't use force to stop him. The states asking the federal government nicely to do something isn't a return of the Confederation. No one is arguing the federal government doesn't have the right to enforce the law because States' Rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Colorado isn't threatening to secede or stopping federal agents from enforcing the law like South Carolina planned to do. Oh, I almost didn't notice - you shifted rhetorical focus from "flaunting authority" to "nullification". You can flaunt authority without nullifying, and it's objective fact that that's what Colorado is doing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
States having different laws is not flaunting authority. It's actually called "the way things are", or "something you should have learned in high school civics". Again, no one is arguing that the federal government doesn't have the right to enforce drug laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:States having different laws is not flaunting authority. When it differs with federal laws, yes quite often it is. Especially if the difference is "This is a crime" and "this is a thing we're going to sell and collect taxes on".
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
I've been kicking around a similar question, honestly. Because yeah we're absolutely gridlocked and gerrymandered and it makes no sense. But like this thread has been saying shutting down the federal government isn't going to fix that. So what I'm wondering is, what if we just did away with state representation? Leave them as governing bodies for their regions yeah, but remove them from the equation at the federal legislative level. What if, instead, we replaced it with socio-economic representation? Think like unions but nation-wide and given legislative authority. So instead of having X people to represent California, X for Wyoming, X Alabama, etc you would have X people representing minimum wages service profession, X representing corporate managers, and so on as dictated by their percentage of the population. Is there anything to this, or am I missing something that would botch the whole thing? (Besides "Union" being a Killing Word and the upper classs never in a million years allowing it to happen.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
None of that is states' rights. States' rights is the doctrine that the federal government doesn't have the right to interfere with state law. Colorado has not made that argument, liberals are not making that argument. States' rights is a very specific (and bad) doctrine. What is happening in Colorado is federalism: the state does a thing and it is allowed only because the federal executive decided to let it happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
We need less and bigger governments to compete with international capital. The US would be helped by removing power from the states such as regulations of corporations. In some areas, the municipal - state - federal sandwich is too much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:None of that is states' rights. States' rights is the doctrine that the federal government doesn't have the right to interfere with state law. Colorado has not made that argument, liberals are not making that argument. States' rights is a very specific (and bad) doctrine. What is happening in Colorado is federalism: the state does a thing and it is allowed only because the federal executive decided to let it happen. To put it even more simply: The 'liberals' are not arguing that the federal government shouldn't have drug laws or that state-level drug laws should supercede federal drug laws. They're arguing the federal drug laws are bad and should be changed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:11
|
|
