|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
So what?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Not really. You'll always have some potential for fuckery around the edges of a district, which is why better districting is important. Otherwise you've got people self segregating by socioeconomic class as well as race and creed. There should ideally still be a distribution of political opinions as well as people being people (sorry your neighbors don't like you Fishmensch). I fail to see how that is a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No I was talking about how the neighbors at the last place were pretty racist towards the black people living in the apartment above us. Which is one of the factors that drives self selection . . .
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
I always liked the "fighting words" over the "obscenity" cases. One of the few cases where Alito was right is Synder v Phelps. I mean, the whole point of the Phelps clan is to actively incite violence so they can then sue. It's how they support themselves. But evidently, that isn't "incitement" or even "fighting words", it is just free speech.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
Human rights at the UN is like a minimum wage for human rights. And like the minimum wage, there are plenty of states in the US that are well below average already and would like to see the whole thing abolished.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 00:21
|
|