|
I am. Gonzales v. Raich was wrongly decided 
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
You're not a hypocrite about it though, because I'm p sure you are some flavor of libertarian.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:That's a pretty good argument for making the UN an actual governing body. This would be both cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
I'd be fine with the abolishment of States and their rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Locke, if you're still reading then this is a pretty good doc from Frontline (which is a program you should be watching very much of, IMHO) specifically pertaining to the consequences of the Citizen's United court decision insofar as it affects broad rural Western/Midwest states. Specifically, that it makes gaming elections on the state and local level in ways that are favorable to entrenched and wealthy concerns really fuckin' easy. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/big-sky-big-money/ It is a really good story which talks a lot about the interplay between Local, State, and Federal governments in the US and has a good central event where a lot of secret campaign finance documents proving Shady Dealings were found in a party house two states over under a wholesale quantity of crystal meth. Rump states are Real Bad Policy, homie. e; also Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Holy loving poo poo. Stop talking about yourself. This. Please. It's coming off real bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Locke, if you're still reading then this is a pretty good doc from Frontline (which is a program you should be watching very much of, IMHO) specifically pertaining to the consequences of the Citizen's United court decision insofar as it affects broad rural Western/Midwest states. Specifically, that it makes gaming elections on the state and local level in ways that are favorable to entrenched and wealthy concerns really fuckin' easy. EDIT: But lol, posters can poo poo on me and break the basic SA rules without punishment but I can't explain my viewpoint when I'm being strawmanned and/or misunderstood? Labeling me as a retard libertarian and everything else changes the discussion and makes it difficult to have a discussion on its own merits. You say tone arguments, I say ad hominem and straw manning. Obvious double standards. Locke Dunnegan fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
I attempted to address your thread in a non-confrontational manner. Your choice to continue only acknowledging posters who "poo poo on you" for the sake of rationalizing your tantrum is completely your own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:That looks interesting, I'll check it out today. Thanks. In truth, good sir, you should afford these ill-mannered rakes not the pleasure of deriding your posts, and should stay your posting quill as much for their sake as your own, that they might pause to consider the folly of their slander.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I attempted to address your thread in a non-confrontational manner. Your choice to continue only acknowledging posters who "poo poo on you" for the sake of rationalizing your tantrum is completely your own. Yes, and I appreciate it, as you are acting like a normal poster. Well I guess on average way above the norm for this thread, so thank you. But considering I have ignored the vast majority of poo poo the last few pages when almost every single post engaging me directly has at least a stupid barbed comment instead of also letting it drop, I figured ignoring it and waiting for moderation apparently isn't the way to raise the bar. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, which sucks because the actual discussion about states vs. feds is getting interesting, and I can't participate because of assholes. And I know there's probably going to be a reply that I CAN participate and ignore the haters more, but why are they allowed to continue? Is this GameFAQs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:And I know there's probably going to be a reply that I CAN participate and ignore the haters more, but why are they allowed to continue? Is this GameFAQs? this is above all else a comedy forum, and your continued masochistic desire to get trolled to poo poo by the most pathetically low effort posts is kind of funny
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:This would be both cool and good.  Bob James posted: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. Although an alternative presents itself here, making all states US member states. Saudi Arabia shouldn't be allowed to poo poo on its populace any more than Texas should. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this is above all else a comedy forum, and your continued masochistic desire to get trolled to poo poo by the most pathetically low effort posts is kind of funny i agree lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:EDIT: But lol, posters can poo poo on me and break the basic SA rules without punishment but I can't explain my viewpoint when I'm being strawmanned and/or misunderstood? Labeling me as a retard libertarian and everything else changes the discussion and makes it difficult to have a discussion on its own merits. You say tone arguments, I say ad hominem and straw manning. Obvious double standards. Without digging up Ancient Forums HistoryTM, you aren't even in the top 1000 Most-Set-Upon-Posters-in-D&D. Not even close. You started a thread spitballing and theorycrafting about dissolving the USA as a contiguous nation without knowing about the Articles of Confederation or how it turned out, or that Jim Crow was a collection of state laws repealed on the federal level. People are gonna make fun of that (though many of them are not funny b/c they are boring) and that's okay because your viewpoint which you hold so sacrosanct is missing some pretty clutch pieces of supporting information. That's not a double standard, that's a single standard. You're on the wrong side of the standard. Please get over yourself. This could be a pretty okay thread if you stopped talking about yourself and instead stepped back and used the gaps in your knowledge--which you admit!--as an initiating point for a low-key and breezy and chatty and fun conversation where people get to talking about stuff and you learn lots of cool things you didn't know before from people who have perspectives you didn't know existed! You don't need to read any textbooks or whatever, you don't need to request four thousand word essays on a subject, you just need to start a conversation and step back and let nerds talking to each other do the heavy lifting for you as they naturally talk about relevant things. This can still be the thread you wanted to make, but you need to stop being so wounded in your ego. People calling you a retarded libertarian actually does not change the discussion hugely, how you respond to it does. You've responded kinda clumsily, in my estimation. XyloJW posted:Locke Dungeon, reading through this thread when it was just one page I thought I should say "tone arguments are really way more trouble than they're worth, just ignore the sarcasm in a post and try to get what they're getting at, or ignore the post entirely. This is still a comedy forum, and D&D can have some humor in its rebuttals." But then I saw other people say it more succinctly and you say "Oh okay, my bad." Then I check back 7 pages later, and you're still doing tone arguments, people are still saying to ignore the tone, and you're still saying "Okay, I understand now." Please just ignore the tone of a post, there's no requirement that people be nice. like, i don't know who this rear end in a top hat nobody lurker is or why that red star's there or what it means or how those typeface changes snuck into the quote or what they could signify, but this is a pretty good post you should read and internalize what its saying and definitely, definitely not respond to it with a post of your own. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
The only solution is full communism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
well duh
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Holding my views sacrosanct is something that I haven't done, actually. I could go fetch the post saying I am ignorant if you'd like but it looks like you're reading the thread so I'm going to assume you've read that one. The thread's topic is too vague to make this anything other than a catch-all topic for pretty much any state OR federal issue, though, so the next thread I post here will have a more refined scope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Holding my views sacrosanct is something that I haven't done, actually. I could go fetch the post saying I am ignorant if you'd like but it looks like you're reading the thread so I'm going to assume you've read that one. Oh good because I'm sure that one will be an even more astounding success.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:And I know there's probably going to be a reply that I CAN participate and ignore the haters more, but why are they allowed to continue? Is this GameFAQs? Well I suppose the appropriate moderator action would be to probate everyone who insulted you then probate you for backseat moderation and discussing forum issues here instead of QCS, and probate me for this post. Oh also to tell you to cut out the insane narcissism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Holding my views sacrosanct is something that I haven't done, actually. I could go fetch the post saying I am ignorant if you'd like but it looks like you're reading the thread so I'm going to assume you've read that one. How about you fetch a big bottle of "getting over things" instead and drink it. Poison also works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted: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. What you are describing is very similar to the fascist third way approach that rejects both capitalism and communism. If you are going that route I recommend the Italians. They have fast cars and cool buildings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What you are describing is very similar to the fascist third way approach that rejects both capitalism and communism. If you are going that route I recommend the Italians. They have fast cars and cool buildings. Futurism FTW Death to Eurasia. Reject their poison history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
I think the problem of decentralization in the US is that politically it seems to be really tied up to the concept of "state's rights" and all the baggage that comes with it. I can't imagine devolution in the UK or decentralization in Germany being an ideological subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Typo posted:I can't imagine devolution in the UK or decentralization in Germany being an ideological subject. I don't know how the US feels about 'states rights' but devolution over here is very much mixed up with nationalism and mutual dislike between the various component areas of the UK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Typo posted:I think the problem of decentralization in the US is that politically it seems to be really tied up to the concept of "state's rights" and all the baggage that comes with it. It's not just baggage in terms of what happened with states rights, but with the fact the U.S. started as a loose confederation without a strong national past. States rights wasn't a radical notion so much as a genuine reactionary movement. Frankly, there are still significant parts of the country that lack the institutional capacity and civil society to function as developed liberal democracies without a federal government. Also, you would increase the (already way too large) power of non-state entities by making every interstate American company into an effective multinational corporation. Don't like NAFTA allowing trucks that follow Mexican safety and pollution standards in the country? I guarantee you one of our great 50 states would beat the still-United States of Mexico in a race to the bottom. Also consider straight up criminals. It took the Feds until the 80's to bust most of the Mafia's power. What would happen without them? (The answer is actually the NYPD paramilitary would take them on, but not without getting into actual gunfights with other state law enforcement along the way (poo poo I'm waiting for an NYPD spook in Paris to shoot a gendarme as it is, only a matter of time)).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Devolution isn't really the same thing as states' rights or confederation though. The UK Parliament still retains control, can legislate for Scotland when it wants, and is free to undo devolution at anytime without the consent of Holyrood as I understand it. Towns have mayors and can pass city ordinances, which means some power has devolved upon them. That doesn't make states mini-confederations, it just means that in some cases the larger government has decided certain things are more efficiently handled at the local level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
the holy roman empire was ftw. well, thats my take on the question
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Make the US a Confederation on a country wide level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What you are describing is very similar to the fascist third way approach that rejects both capitalism and communism. If you are going that route I recommend the Italians. They have fast cars and cool buildings. Seriously?  If I'm missing something feel free to break it down for me, but I feel like with the rise of technology, physical location isn't really as much of a dealbreaker as it used to be. 200 years ago getting everybody in an area to go write names down on a slip of paper was hard enough on its own. I just think we can probably develop a better way to represent a populace, legislatively, other than what state and/or gerrymandered district a person is living in.
Luminous Obscurity fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
OP, I think States work as excellent laboratories of democracy. You can experiment and tweak a little here and there to see if a policy will be successful, and if it is it can be adopted at the national level. At the turn of the last century states like New York were very progressive and would help lift less progressive states like Pennsylvania or Kentucky up their level with worker safety and food and drug protections by getting their progressive policies adapted at the national level. This is also like Massachusetts and its Health Care law and the ACA. However, this only works within the greater framework of the federal system, because when a state goes the opposite direction and say bans poor people from voting by issuing a poll tax, there needs to be an indomitable power to check them and enforce human rights. Really, one of the failings of the modern progressive movement is their failure to gain power and institute policy on the local and state level to prove their ideas on a smaller scale and then adapt them to a national scale. There are, of course, a multitude of reasons for this (gerrymandering/money politics). So should states have more freedom to experiment with different policies? Maybe, but there needs to be a fed so when a state crosses a line, their power can be checked.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
They dont work well as laboratories because most states have stupid deficit spending restrictions. Also limiting reform to little states doesnt do much because global and even national capital just steamrolls over them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Maybe we should abolish the states and turn them into districts. And then every year we can have children fight to the death for the glory of the districts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They dont work well as laboratories because most states have stupid deficit spending restrictions. I hear ya, man. I live in Colorado where the State Constitution was amended banning all new tax increases and it had to be repealed after much work and money. So like, they work both ways. Laboratories of both freedom and oppression, good and bad, etc and then the Fed is there to watch over everything. Look at Kansas today, you probably don't hear much about it because legislatively its a Republican dreamworld, however its having insane revenue problems which is forcing it to cut spending in places like the universities and people in Kansas actually really like their universities and other things. Policy implemented- policy not attempted at federal level due to abysmal failure (i.e. no one is toting Kansas as a model example even though legislatively it is). And yes the money issue is a serious problem to which no one has come up with a solution
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
I'm sympathetic to that line of reasoning but essentially codifying guilds as the model for the person is rather dystopian. Especially given the current fluidity of the job market as well as the multiple roles a person is expected to occupy. Let's take a step back from straight up corporatism or national syndicalism and go with syndicalism as a basic starting point:  It looks like a good idea, but it runs into the same problem as the Soviet model (only instead of soviets based on locality, you have "soviets" based on employment). The squeeze between the syndicate and the federation allows for easy access to corrupting forces (similar to the indirect election of senators in the US). Plus, populations tend to self-segregate. What we need isn't radical change, we just need to be better at districting. Impartial districting is a solution that has a greater chance of being realized as opposed to reinvented the wheel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Okay, I get what you're saying now. I can agree that jobs might be too fluid to realistically base representation on. That said, I feel like sometimes it can be healthy to take another look at the wheel, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
Why stop at states' rights? California is larger than most countries; why should that vast expanse of radically different regions all be subject to Sacramento? To ensure that all parts of the US are under local rule, I propose we break it up into a confederation of sovereign city-states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
The individual can still be outvoted in a city-state. The only defensible local government is the absolute sovereignty of the individual, with the only law a ban on the initiation of force.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why stop at states' rights? California is larger than most countries; why should that vast expanse of radically different regions all be subject to Sacramento? To ensure that all parts of the US are under local rule, I propose we break it up into a confederation of sovereign city-states. This is the example where military force really does come into play, however, with the south using whatever force necessary to secure water from the north at a favorable cost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Plus, populations tend to self-segregate. They often self-segregate socially but not geographically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
What the gently caress does that even mean? When I move to a new area, the friends I make (people like me) tend to be within 20 miles of where I am living. Where I move after that basically triangulates and the distance narrows.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 05:02 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:What the gently caress does that even mean? When I move to a new area, the friends I make (people like me) tend to be within 20 miles of where I am living. Where I move after that basically triangulates and the distance narrows. Pretty common to have neighbors that simply refuse to talk with you but are more than happy to socialize with the guys two streets over and so on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 06:53
|
|