Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Oddly enough, a lot of nice shit comes from the cities and otherwise non-rural areas. Also the countryside is boring as goddamn, and not really setup to make a lot of neat junk. Maybe farmers could strike or something or try to exert power via threatening food supplies, but then they got barely anything to make their lives pleasant and a majority of the country's population is pissed off at them and considerably more capable of fielding more direct repercussions.

That's not even getting into the flat fact that if it really came to it, cityfolk could just break off some people, build up the necessary machinery, and replace them. We don't need even remotely as many farmers as we used to to maintain the agriculture output we do.

Or all the other stuff. Long story short, though, is that there's not nearly enough farmers nor do they have even remotely sufficient capability to defend themselves from repercussions of trying to really screw people in more developed areas for it to really be an option. And even beyond that many of them aren't quite fucked in the head enough to think trying to starve their countrymen and distant family is a good idea. All sorts of other stuff, really. Agrarian revolution was a pipe dream several generations ago, when it comes right down to it.

[wierd]

Sorry to burst your bubble there frumple, but rooftop gardens will never replace the mass, intensive agriculture that permits people to buy bread, flour, eggs, and milk.

The urban population would revolt (in both senses of the word!) at the smell alone.

There is a reason why these industries are put OUTSIDE the cities.  It 1) takes a lot of real estate, and 2) Often involves very unsanitary conditions to keep animals (chickens, cows, swine, et al) Jamming dense urban populations right next to that factory egg and chicken farm will give lots of people salmonella.

If instead you mean 'move out of the city, and do the work outside the city', by 'break off', what those people who do that will quickly realize is that they suddenly become the minority farmers who the city takes for granted-- besides, what farmer's land will they seize to enact this plan? Arable land isnt something you just conjure from thin air.

[Frumple]

... mate, I wasn't saying anything about rooftop gardens. I was talking going out, kicking some farmers off their land/throwing the ones that wouldn't play ball in jail (or just using arable stuff the cities already had sufficient influence over), and then shifting enough population out to do it without them.

[wierd]

Oh, so what Stalin did in the Ukraine then?

Yeah, that did Russia LOTS of good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Sergarr]

It's actually, in a way, surprising that the rural areas don't try to exert more power. It's amazing what "Hey, you like to eat, don't you?" can do in a negotiation.  You could probably write a lot of dystopian fiction based on that (that's of one of the many things that bothered me about Hunger Games - if you really don't want your oppressors to keep oppressing you, just stop making stuff for them! Yeah, you might have to sacrifice yourself for that, though).

It's not surprising to anyone who has read about 1920s-1930s period in USSR. Cities wreck the utter shit out of rurals in any open fight, and people usually tend to choose living in shitty condition over dying off.

The disparity has only become greater since then - while rurals now have automatic rifles, cities have remotely controlled aircraft that will allow the city dwellers to kill rurals at their leisure from a position of complete safety.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Criptfeind]

Oh, so what Stalin did in the Ukraine then?

Yeah, that did Russia LOTS of good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

A civil war between the cities and rural areas is already a pretty nightmare situation for everyone involved. Mass famine isn't really the worst outcome on the table here.

[wierd]

What the wikipedia article does not explain well, is that a major contributing factor of the holodomor was the forced eviction of Ukrainian farmers, with a land-grab by ethnic russians (from cities) who did not know how to properly work those farms, in addition to the state mandated crops.

The callousness of that eviction (the Ukrainians were expected to just die.), echoes the kind frumple off-handedly tendered above.

The holodomor is really what turned the former USSR into a backward shithole where people literally had to steal to have food.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Ah, so that's how Trump did it.

[Frumple]

What the wikipedia article does not explain well, is that a major contributing factor of the holodomor was the forced eviction of Ukrainian farmers, with a land-grab by ethnic russians (from cities) who did not know how to properly work those farms, in addition to the state mandated crops.

Trick is, "Did not know how to properly work those farms" isn't really an issue at this point. Ag science isn't exactly some kind of mystical knowledge kept enshrined in the depths of the countryside only able to be interpreted by the great seed wizards, and the advances in machinery and methodology and all that we've made since that time (and especially in comparison to that area) gives a significantly different sort of scenario. Different times are different times.

Though it's silly as all hell to begin with. Rural frustration is there but it's not anywhere near the critical mass even attempts at crap like is being discussed needs to become even a remote chance, never mind likely one or likely success of the initial steps.

[wierd]

forced eviction because "Did not get what I want!" politics, is still grossly immoral, frumple.

Also, not just any joe sixpack can properly or safely operate (or maintain) large farm equipment.

[Frumple]

Forced eviction because they're trying to goddamn starve urban populations damn sure isn't. Which is what was being discussed.

[wierd]

and the reasons for said starving tactic?  Being told "You are few, your voice is meaningless! Obey the voice of the majority, or lose your lands!"  is somehow a better narrative?

Protip: replacing the farmers wont make that cause go away. You just victimize more people.

[Neonivek]

and the reasons for said starving tactic?  Being told "You are few, your voice is meaningless! Obey the voice of the majority, or lose your lands!"  is somehow a better narrative?

Uhh yeah duh! that is the narrative right now.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Well duh. If there are two voters, they should have less political power than three voters. And so on.

[Shadowlord]

Northern Midwest/Great Lakes region especially. Also Maine, Clinton looks like she was at risk of losing Maine entirely, and that's one of two most liberal states in the Union (the other being California).

Maine? Most liberal? Explain Governor Paul "The worst part of my life is newspapers are still alive" LePage. Governor Paul "What I think we ought to do is bring the guillotine back. We could have public executions" LePage. Governor Paul "What I am trying to say is the Holocaust was a horrific crime against humanity and, frankly, I would never want to see that repeated. Maybe the IRS is not quite as bad -- yet" LePage. Quotes

I've quoted this article in its entirety in case it's paywalled for some of you.

Dozens of major regulations passed recently by the Obama administration — including far-reaching changes on health care, consumer protections and environmental safety — could be undone with the stroke of a pen by Donald J. Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress starting in January, thanks to a little-used law that dates back to 1996.

And it comes with a scorched-earth kicker: If the law is used to strike down a rule, the federal agency that issued it is barred from enacting similar regulation again in the future.

The obscure law — called the Congressional Review Act — was passed 20 years ago at the behest of Newt Gingrich, then the House speaker and now a member of Mr. Trump’s transition team. It gives Congress 60 legislative days to review and override major regulations enacted by federal agencies. In the Senate, the vote would not be subject to filibuster.

The president can veto the rejection, which usually renders the law toothless. But when one party controls both the White House and Congress, it can be a powerful legislative weapon.

Spoiler: more (click to show/hide)

So far it has only been successfully used once: In 2001, a Republican Congress invoked it to eliminate workplace safety regulations adopted in the final months of President Clinton’s tenure. President George W. Bush signed the repeal two months after his inauguration, wiping out stricter ergonomics rules that had been 10 years in the making.

On Jan. 20, when Mr. Trump takes office with a Republican-controlled Congress — one that has indicated its zeal for undoing President Obama’s doings — more than 150 rules adopted since late May are potentially vulnerable to the ax, according to an analysis by the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center.

“It allows the election results to be applied almost retroactively, to snip off activity that happened at the end of the last administration,” said Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown.

The regulations at risk include:

■ Many environmental mandates, including limits on formaldehyde use and stricter truck fuel efficiency rules;

■ A Food and Drug Administration ban on the sale of antibacterial soaps;

■ A requirement that federal contractors provide paid sick leave for their workers;

■ Stricter consumer protections on prepaid debit cards;

■ Federal loan forgiveness for students at schools that shut down;

■ A rule that bars nursing homes that receive federal funding from requiring residents to resolve all disputes through arbitration, rather than in court.

Under Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s leadership, the House has used the law several times to try to reject a number of the Obama administration’s policies. Those challenges were symbolic — President Obama vetoed every one that reached his desk — but President-elect Trump can approve any sent to him after he takes office. Mr. Ryan’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

“I don’t think they’ll go after every single rule, but I think you’ll get eight to 10 that may be targeted,” said Sam Batkins, the director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, a right-leaning group that has been tracking which regulations are subject to congressional review.

The threat posed by the law may slow the usual rush of “midnight regulations” that administrations typically race to finish in their final days. This year, it will be a high-stakes game of chicken — put out a rule and hope it survives, or hold off, to preserve the chance to revisit it in the future?

“I would imagine there will be a serious discussion about regulations that they were planning to finalize,” said Susan E. Dudley, the director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. “The bluntness of the C.R.A. may be exactly what makes it appealing to the next Congress and president.”

The Labor Department has never tried to revive the rule that President Bush struck down.

“Because this has only been done once before, there’s no litigation history,” said Stuart Shapiro, a Rutgers professor of public policy who previously worked at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the unit that coordinates reviews of executive branch regulations.

“It wipes the rule out for quite a while, at the very least,” he said. “We don’t know what would happen if an agency eventually decided to go back and try again.”

Because Congress takes so many breaks, 60 legislative days stretches out for many calendar months. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the review deadline for the Obama administration’s rules will fall at the end of May, based on the planned schedule for the rest of this year.

Adjourning early would buy Congress some extra days. When the new Congress convenes, the clock resets and lawmakers have additional time to review eligible rules.

Some Republican lawmakers are eager to slash where they can.

On Tuesday, the Interior Department issued a new regulation designed to control emissions of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas — from oil and natural gas wells on federal and Indian tribal lands.

It is a relatively small part of a larger set of regulations that the Obama administration has been rolling out to prevent inadvertent leaks from wells, processing plants and pipelines. With a few exceptions, the oil and gas industry has opposed the regulations as unnecessarily costly.

Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, fired off a scathing statement.

“Congress has many tools with which to rescind this rule, and I look forward to working with the incoming Trump administration to ensure economic expansion prevails over misguided bureaucratic interference,” he said.

Daisy Letendre, Mr. Inhofe’s communications director, said the Congressional Review Act was one of those “tools” to which he referred.