|
How different of a Federation is Russia?
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
It needs to remain a federation but the underlying organization of states should be rearranged (including redrawn borders) for less waste (the large number of municipal governments on the East Coast) and better use of funds. But for a number of reasons that is unlikely to happen. The recent election in Israel was the rumblings of a reckoning - sometimes the gross facade slips and the reality of breakdown is evident. The Americas should have complete freedom of movement and trade and some rationalized tax structure. The President seems to be laying ground on this in Latin America this past week. Eurasia seems unable to federalize properly - but the ideological base of US foreign policy since WW2 is that we must aggressively push federalization. Perhaps our relationship with the other continents can be reevaluated. Hitlers Gay Secret posted:How different of a Federation is Russia? The tradition is that Moscow appoints the regional governor - but Putin has allowed elected governors for some/all provinces I think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
We should get rid of Wyoming.Hitlers Gay Secret posted:How different of a Federation is Russia? Russia used to consider anything below 10% alcohol as non-alcoholic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:EDIT: This isn't an interesting topic to anyone else? What are the popular ideas for big-picture changes to improve the downward trend of personal freedoms post-911? Is there a reason to think the creep of executive power (and federal in general) will abate by itself? This is a bipartisan issue, both Obama and GWB have leveraged war and security to seriously erode personal freedoms. In addition to the Articles of Confederation being a disaster in 1780, and American history since then largely being a study in local law being used to oppress in the most granular possible fasion? In the 21st century when big states split into smaller, loosely affiliated states, the resulting chaos is called "Balkanization." It went bad in the Balkans, it went bad in the Middle East when regimes began cycling through despots and paramilitary militias faster than Spinal Tap goes through drummers, and it'd go far far worse in the USA where there are more guns than in either of those places and dumber motherfuckers to use them without thinking things through. You're being met glibly because this thread is a sort of gutfelt reckon based in no particular study and that is very funny on this, whats ultimately a political/current events subforum of a comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Yeah but I get to smoke weed and put up "no darkies" signs in my smoke shop, so the chaos and insanity is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine, thanks for not being a dick about someone honestly attempting discussion. I hadn't thought about it the way you explained it, and I see what the issues are with letting some states have more power to oppress. You are the first to do even a short direct response and I have more understanding, thanks. Also, I am not libertarian or Republican or right-wing at all. Being that I didn't bring up any popular talking points (that I know of) aside from reducing the power of central government somewhat, especially considering the increase in central power in the last fifteen years or so, I don't understand how someone can argue that I seem to be a member of those parties. Other than retarded non discussion straw men lulz, I guess. I hadn't realized how lax the requirements for posting had become in this forum. This isn't a slam, really, just that I prefer debate and discussion in D&D and the empty quotes and edgy comedy in GBS. Locke Dunnegan fucked around with this message at 01:37 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Captain_Maclaine, thanks for not being a dick about someone honestly attempting discussion. I hadn't thought about it the way you explained it, and I see what the issues are with letting some states have more power to oppress. ok, so you have a gut feeling that there's been an "increase in central power in the last fifteen years or so" whereas many "shitposters" here (myself included) have brought up actual historical examples of state governments making life miserable for blacks and gays and stifling the former's right to vote before the federal government stopped them from doing so. why don't you answer them instead of whinging about empty quotes and edgy comedy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:The majority of the last 250 years of American history has been under a strong central national government, so Jim Crow, Japanese-American internment during WWII, fuckery of Native Americans, the drug war, the Great Depression, and others. "Strong" is a relative term, and relatively speaking no it has not had a strong central government. Jim Crow was state-level legislation and specifically outlawing it almost set the loving nation on fire, the Great Depression was a fault of unfettered capital which took federal intervention to ameliorate and only gave way to the Great Recession specifically because of a repeal of those protections and programs, and right there if I were really smart I'd just loving stop because its clear you have a tenuous grasp of history and economics. Internment was an atrocity, but are you even remotely familiar with what other states were doing at that time in world history? Again, "strong" is a relative term. quote:Yes there have been leaps and bounds in personal freedoms (some more than others), but there's still seemingly systemic problems that hold us back as a nation Individually these are all words in English, yes. Arranged like this, none of them have any meaning or describe any idea that can be conceived. Bob James posted:We should get rid of Wyoming. This is literally a better threadstarting proposal. My position: we should not because I didn't remember until just now that Wyoming existed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Wyoming: Giving Vermont a state to look down upon
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Wyoming: Giving Vermont a state to look down upon Captain Maclane can confirm this but I'm pretty sure Vermont looks down on every state
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Bob James posted:We should get rid of Wyoming. No the contiguous borders of the 50 states aren't going anywhere - here's an interesting map:  This is the world divided into $1 trillion GDP regions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Wyoming: Giving Vermont a state to look down upon You mean other than the normal  ness about the awesome white Social Democratic culture they have?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Wyoming: Giving Vermont a state to look down upon Pretty sure Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, or Arkansas have the market cornered on stats other states can look down on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Also, I am not libertarian or Republican or right-wing at all. Being that I didn't bring up any popular talking points (that I know of) aside from reducing the power of central government somewhat, especially considering the increase in central power in the last fifteen years or so, I don't understand how someone can argue that I seem to be a member of those parties. There is a particular "just-asking-(leading)-questions" tone which takes a cavalier and ahistorical view of factual reality whose conclusion is "we need More Freedoms and Less Government." Never mind that outside the urban coasts that would categorically result in less freedom and power primitively accumulating to the petty lords of local business which should scare the poo poo out of you if you are remotely familiar with, say, Texan drilling companies, Western ranchers or Appalachian mining concerns. I would politely describe those who take that tone as "Alex Jones enthusiasts." You sound a lot like that, which is probably setting people off and triggering a reaction that--to you--seems unfair and unwarranted but to forum regulars is some poo poo they got sick of reading 10 years ago. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You mean other than the normal Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Being that I didn't bring up any popular talking points (that I know of) aside from reducing the power of central government somewhat, especially considering the increase in central power in the last fifteen years or so, I don't understand how someone can argue that I seem to be a member of those parties. I believe you are mistaking the co-opting and corruption of federal power by massively monied interests with an increase in the power of federal power. We are not seeing an increase in centralized power, we are seeing rampant abuse of that power due to the abdication of responsibility by the electorate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
It would be cool if the US stopped being a federation, and was instead abolished. The rest of the world thanks you in advance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
It should have been obvious by now but I meant the initial post to be taken as a straightforward request for information relating to the topic of discussion. I don't quite get how it could have been taken as a tongue-in-cheek "take that, atheists" type of post, but here we are. I'd like to assume you all are just raring for a good roast on a random dude you can make assumptions and stereotypes about as a retarded edgy echo chamber clusterfuck, but considering only a couple posters have deigned to give me anything resembling a proper response and the shitposterest of shitposts haven't been probated or anything, I think I just hosed up somewhere. It was a sloppy first post but it was meant to be in good faith, I'm sorry if I offended anyone or made people think I had ulterior motives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:In the 21st century when big states split into smaller, loosely affiliated states, the resulting chaos is called "Balkanization." It went bad in the Balkans, it went bad in the Middle East when regimes began cycling through despots and paramilitary militias faster than Spinal Tap goes through drummers, and it'd go far far worse in the USA where there are more guns than in either of those places and dumber motherfuckers to use them without thinking things through.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You mean other than the normal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKN6JJYIWWY
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
McDowell posted:No the contiguous borders of the 50 states aren't going anywhere - here's an interesting map: What kind of a monster separates most of Wisconsin from Green Bay?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It would be cool if the US stopped being a federation, and was instead abolished. Oh look it's the unironic Stalinist who's upset his favorite pseudofederation got abolished. Locke Dunnegan posted:It should have been obvious by now but I meant the initial post to be taken as a straightforward request for information relating to the topic of discussion. I don't quite get how it could have been taken as a tongue-in-cheek "take that, atheists" type of post, but here we are. I'd like to assume you all are just raring for a good roast on a random dude you can make assumptions and stereotypes about as a retarded edgy echo chamber clusterfuck, but considering only a couple posters have deigned to give me anything resembling a proper response and the shitposterest of shitposts haven't been probated or anything, I think I just hosed up somewhere. It was a sloppy first post but it was meant to be in good faith, I'm sorry if I offended anyone or made people think I had ulterior motives. I'm sorry dude but federalization is one of the few things the United States has undoubtedly correct. And there's more than 2 centuries of infrastructure and interdependence laid down that will fall the gently caress apart if any sort of breakup is done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:Captain_Maclaine, thanks for not being a dick about someone honestly attempting discussion. I hadn't thought about it the way you explained it, and I see what the issues are with letting some states have more power to oppress. You are the first to do even a short direct response and I have more understanding, thanks. There is no increase in the power of the government over the last 15 years, not in the US and not in any other important country you might care to mention. The American federal government has been slowly dying for like 40 years now, mostly because of the concerted political effort to kill it off. But it's an irrelevant point, because oppression and racism in society has basically nothing to do with the libertarian conception of the size of the government that you're referring to here. Medieval Europe was close to a libertarian paradise, with no central government to speak of and isolated, self sufficient manorial estates where a small caste of upper class ruled over masses of propertyless peasants. The Old South was fairly similar except replace peasants with black slaves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Out of interest, how do you think it would have gone in Scotland, had the referendum passed? Or in Catalonia if the government even allowed them to have a referendum? In Scotland there would have been a week of the kind of euphoria that can only be brought about by self-determination followed by the kind of vertiginous terror that can only be brought about by self-determination as the bottom fell out of the oil market, skullfucking their national budget. In Catalonia I couldn't begin to hazard a guess. My gut feeling is that small rump states are less stable than larger, broadly diversified states, but my gut is the part of my body that makes and takes shits and it certainly hasn't been to Catalonia that I'm aware of. Locke Dunnegan posted:It should have been obvious by now but I meant the initial post to be taken as a straightforward request for information relating to the topic of discussion. I don't quite get how it could have been taken as a tongue-in-cheek "take that, atheists" type of post, but here we are. I'd like to assume you all are just raring for a good roast on a random dude you can make assumptions and stereotypes about as a retarded edgy echo chamber clusterfuck, but considering only a couple posters have deigned to give me anything resembling a proper response and the shitposterest of shitposts haven't been probated or anything, I think I just hosed up somewhere. It was a sloppy first post but it was meant to be in good faith, I'm sorry if I offended anyone or made people think I had ulterior motives. D&D is a better forum for having a certain intolerance for constantly returning to first principles, but sometimes first principles threads are fun. Sometimes. In the weird way that posting in D&D is ever fun. Yield and overcome, is my advice. Lean In, pivot, and refocus. Namaste. #notamod #plzdontban
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It would be cool if the US stopped being a federation, and was instead abolished. I, too, love power vacuums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Jagchosis posted:Captain Maclane can confirm this but I'm pretty sure Vermont looks down on every state While as The Best StateTM we might be otherwise inclined so to do, our vast enlightenment yields only a sense of benign amusement at the antics of other states. Except New Hampshire. gently caress those upside-down weak maple-syrup-havers. Locke Dunnegan posted:Also, I am not libertarian or Republican or right-wing at all. Being that I didn't bring up any popular talking points (that I know of) aside from reducing the power of central government somewhat, especially considering the increase in central power in the last fifteen years or so, I don't understand how someone can argue that I seem to be a member of those parties. Come to the libertarian thread, we have such wonders to show you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Come to the libertarian thread, we have such wonders to show you. DONT LISTEN TO HIM, YOU HAVE SO MUCH TO LIVE FOR
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:At the ripe old age of 27, I have become a bit disillusioned with the American political system. Our federal government is corrupt with gerrymandering, lies, special interest, bribery, and strong-arming. The military budget vastly outstrips every other country's, the rich pay the government to dismantle hard-won and important checks to defend the poor and disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is bad with computers. We are doing self-destructive, myopic things like widespread fracking, drug prohibition, and ignoring crumbling infrastructure. Immediate questions for you, you're 27. Have you ever participated in the Democratic process? Voluntered to walk turf and phonebank for your local electeds? Contributed to a Federal level campaign? Please, answer honestly. I understand how easy it would be to become disillusioned if the only participation one has in our democracy is to spend five minutes once every two years participating in representational government. Some of us contribute our lives towards public service; what do you do for America, and why should I not become disillusioned in you? ps locke, you sound a bit hobbswanian in your epiphany of disenfranchisement, so tl;dr what have you done to entitle yourself? Is it safe to assume that you're a white male?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:DONT LISTEN TO HIM, YOU HAVE SO MUCH TO LIVE FOR We have an eternity to know your first principles. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It would be cool if the US stopped being a federation, and was instead abolished. You do realize that the Republic of Arizona would soon after decide to nuke all the terrorists, and once the missiles start flying over your territory, everybody begins to launch nukes because OH CHRIST WHAT IF THEY'RE HEADED FOR US?!?! The rest of the world won't be able to thank us; won't be able to strive to become American through their righteous, appropriate, and sustainable actions. The rest of the world gonna be dead, boy. Gonna be charred-black dead, gonna be spitting blood as our biological agents get released into the wild dead, gonna be charcoals of a hundred milleniums' bonobo's flint-kindled fire. You think America is a force for evil in this world? You naive little worm, the ideal of the America is all which stands between humanity and ISIL; between homo sapien and pan troglodytes. America's perceived current ills are the result of two forces: the decentralization of power in the post-war environment, and the empowerment of individuals outside the white male identity. The two are a mixed matrix'd so an eye without framework to different between the two will discern either one or neither. OP, I can elaborate if you wish, or recommend further readings on the historical nature of power and the exceptional American exertion of that power. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:It should have been obvious by now but I meant the initial post to be taken as a straightforward request for information relating to the topic of discussion. I don't quite get how it could have been taken as a tongue-in-cheek "take that, atheists" type of post, but here we are. I'd like to assume you all are just raring for a good roast on a random dude you can make assumptions and stereotypes about as a retarded edgy echo chamber clusterfuck, but considering only a couple posters have deigned to give me anything resembling a proper response and the shitposterest of shitposts haven't been probated or anything, I think I just hosed up somewhere. It was a sloppy first post but it was meant to be in good faith, I'm sorry if I offended anyone or made people think I had ulterior motives. Well okay look, one of the big problems with your OP is that it was vague and unfocused, and just kind of mixed everything up into "government bad". You said that gerrymandering is corrupting our federal government...but gerrymandering is something that states do. State governments are gerrymandered as badly or worse. Michigan gerrymander posted:State House: 1,536,711 (51.2%) total votes cast for state House Democratic candidates that resulted in 47 Democratic House seats (43%) Do you know what the biggest restraint on state gerrymandering is? Baker v Carr and Reynolds v Sims, two federal cases that required districts to be equal population for the first time. Before this, states were able to effectively disenfranchise the cities with poo poo like quote:
All six million people in LA used to send exactly one representative to the California senate, equal in vote to a county of 14,000 people. It's bad enough that some 90% of my city (Austin) is represented by horrible Republicans tea partiers because our districts snake out of the city and encompass huge tracts of rural land out towards Houston, Lubbock, and Ft Worth to outvote us. Going to a confederation means giving the state back the power to give a city of millions of people a single state rep, while every cowtown and ranch gets to send its own inbred shitkicker to run the government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:It would be cool if the US stopped being a federation, and was instead abolished. I think the US should be reassembled as the United Soviet States of America. quote:I'm sorry dude but federalization is one of the few things the United States has undoubtedly correct. And there's more than 2 centuries of infrastructure and interdependence laid down that will fall the gently caress apart if any sort of breakup is done. I can kinda see why people would want a more decentralized government in the US, if for no other reason than because policy making at the national level is so dysfunctional. Typo fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Typo posted:To be fair federalization in the US is pretty suboptimal (see the Wyoming having 2 senators and 1 congressmen) and a big switchup of the components of fedrealization or making it more like the Canadian/UK system might be better. I think I would just settle for a pure proportional House. You can keep the senate just how it is and it can be the bastion of state equality or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Typo posted:I think the US should be reassembled as the United Soviet States of America. The UK system is horrible poo poo, what would make you think any of it would work?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Locke Dunnegan posted:It should have been obvious by now but I meant the initial post to be taken as a straightforward request for information relating to the topic of discussion. I don't quite get how it could have been taken as a tongue-in-cheek "take that, atheists" type of post, but here we are. I'd like to assume you all are just raring for a good roast on a random dude you can make assumptions and stereotypes about as a retarded edgy echo chamber clusterfuck, but considering only a couple posters have deigned to give me anything resembling a proper response and the shitposterest of shitposts haven't been probated or anything, I think I just hosed up somewhere. It was a sloppy first post but it was meant to be in good faith, I'm sorry if I offended anyone or made people think I had ulterior motives. Willie Tomg gave you a pretty nice response, the first post in this thread was a good response. Sorry if your "Maybe the federal government shouldn't exist" idea doesn't get a huge positive reaction from people who have been discussing politics for several decades and devote huge portions of their lives to studying US and world history. Maybe you shouldn't assume everyone is out to get you and that maybe your idea isn't the best idea in the world. Maybe it is actually a stupid idea, one that doesn't solve the problems you think it will while creating many more, much worse, problems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I think I would just settle for a pure proportional House. You can keep the senate just how it is and it can be the bastion of state equality or whatever. We have a House proportional to population, with decentralization: the states are free to regulate how they choose to divvy up that proportional representation within their administrative bounds, in accordance with the will of the people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The UK system is horrible poo poo, what would make you think any of it would work? Why? The problem with the US system is amount of veto power that every component of the political system gets, which means that you get what you have today: political gridlock and badly needed reforms don't get passed. The last time the US passed a budget is what 1997? The UK system is much more decisive and capable of implementing policies, i.e if the Parliament don't pass a budget it is dissolved and a new election is called. It allows things to be done and a mechanism (vote of no confidence) for the electorate to judge those policies by. Also far greater technocratic input on areas that ends up being settled through lawsuits in the US (i.e a bunch of environmental issues) but that has nothing to do with federalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:We have a House proportional to population, with decentralization: the states are free to regulate how they choose to divvy up that proportional representation within their administrative bounds, in accordance with the will of the people. Proportional* Population per house seat based on 2010 census Montana - JUST under 1M Rhode Island - A bit over 500k
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Typo posted:Why? The UK system of half assed devolution is horribly broken, as is the life time appointment upper house. Furthermore they maintain FPTP despite being a parliamentary system, which basically is awful. There is no reason to reduce the US to a system where the majority of the country uses the congress for what are state level laws now, with the residents of the remaining states maintaining state government also voting on the national congress' issues for the un-state-ified remainder. Bel Shazar posted:Proportional* Congress could expand itself at any time to address this, they just need to pass a new reapportionment bill.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:09 |
|
|
Typo posted:Why? You identify power-sharing between branches as a problem, and not the core principle, of American democracy. You state you want a "decisive" and "technocratic" 'reform' of US governance. What you want, sir, is un-American. What you want is benevolent dictatorship so long as you perceive it as personally benefiting you and your kin. You would kill democracy to feel satisfied; what, sir, have you contributed to your community, what have you done personally to reform the democratic process in your community? If you cannot, or will not, answer this, the only legitimate interpretation of your silence is that you have done nothing and perceive yourself entitled to something. Well, guess what, white males are no longer entitled to the perception of entitlement in America. Get the gently caress over it and don't seek to destroy the genius of American democracy because of the unfulfillment of your perceived entitlements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:05
|
|