Print

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

[nenjin]

I like the ability of smaller states to at least have some representation against states like California. Otherwise it would be the equivalent of turn-of-the-century New York in terms of its political weight.

And I really don't feel like subsidizing half of California's problems.

[PTTG??]

Since a person living in California or New York is less human than one living in North Dakota or Alaska, and deserves less representation.

[Sowelu]

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

Each state is designed to allow a different way of life.  All are treated as equally valid even if they don't have so much population.  This allows people to move freely, choose the life they want, instead of being tyrranized by the majority.

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

[Nadaka]

I like the ability of smaller states to at least have some representation against states like California. Otherwise it would be the equivalent of turn-of-the-century New York in terms of its political weight.

And I really don't feel like subsidizing half of California's problems.

You are aware that states like California and New York subsidize half the fly over states problems?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

[scriver]

I completely understand the "states' rights" viewpoint (even if I don't agree with the seemingly common reasons for speaking for it). I hate how the EU is able to overrule our laws and morals. Similarly, I despise the influence the UK, France and Germany hold over it. One of the major reasons the EU is doomed to fail (and why I want us to secede ASAP) is that the big players seems incapable to understand cooperation as anything other than "what's best for me".

Err... This was supposed to be related somehow.

[Leafsnail]

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

This is interesting... "argument from providing two extremely specific cases and pretending that no others exist".

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

It's equally valid.  Hence each person living the Alaskan way of life should be entitled to as much representation as each person living the New York way of life.

I completely understand the "states' rights" viewpoint (even if I don't agree with the seemingly common reasons for speaking for it). I hate how the EU is able to overrule our laws and morals. Similarly, I despise the influence the UK, France and Germany hold over it. One of the major reasons the EU is doomed to fail (and why I want us to secede ASAP) is that the big players seems incapable to understand cooperation as anything other than "what's best for me".

I don't think the UK has too much EU influence at the moment seeing as how we manage to keep marginalising ourselves (by, say, being the only one to reject the latest treaty).  If anything we're more likely to secede considering the Conservatives are now in the "anti-EU/ total nutbag alliance".

[nenjin]

I like the ability of smaller states to at least have some representation against states like California. Otherwise it would be the equivalent of turn-of-the-century New York in terms of its political weight.

And I really don't feel like subsidizing half of California's problems.

You are aware that states like California and New York subsidize half the fly over states problems?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

Considering other states don't have half the problems that California does due to its population size and standard of living (irrigating a desert), I don't know if that's quite accurate.

California may contribute more to the tax pool than they get back, but that doesn't mean they're effectively carrying half the United States. I'd be ok with California getting more of their share of federal spending (because christ, they need it), but if we were doing a truly proportional system, California would steam roll half the country because a) it has the highest population and b) it has the biggest financial problems. I wouldn't want to fall into a system where California keeps growing and requires an ever bigger share of federal spending to support itself.

[Leafsnail]

It wouldn't though since California doesn't represent over 50% of the nation.

[Sowelu]

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

This is interesting... "argument from providing two extremely specific cases and pretending that no others exist".

I...What?  That's exactly how it works.  Small states have an advantage in the Senate, big states have an advantage in the House.  Those aren't extremely specific cases.  Either the Senate and House both pass a bill (trivial case), the Senate and House both kill it (trivial case), the Senate passes and the House doesn't (big states enforce their will), or the House passes and the Senate doesn't (little states enforce their will).  Those are the ONLY cases.

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

It's equally valid.  Hence each person living the Alaskan way of life should be entitled to as much representation as each person living the New York way of life.

And in the House of Representatives, that's how it works.  In the Senate, just as specified when our country was founded, it's governmental philosophies instead of people that duke it out.  A US citizen who lives in the States can only choose one of fifty states to live in; the limiting factor is the number of states and not the number of people.  All those possible states are given equal power, so that freedom of self-government is maintained.

I guess if you can't wrap your head around seeing governmental philosophies as actual things that exist and which need to be granted power and freedom, the whole thing is going to be very confusing.  I don't really know how to keep arguing in that case.  It's a basic fact of how our country was founded though: the states ARE granted standing as corporal entities in the Senate.  Much like a human, one state and the ideas it represents is treated in the Senate the same way that one person is treated in the House.

[PTTG??]

Fifty states, fifty social experiments, fifty sets of rules.  Remember, there's representatives and congressmen...  If a few big states say "We want this" and all the little states say "No", it doesn't pass on one side.  If a lot of little states say "We want this" and the big states say "No", it doesn't pass on the other side.

Each state is designed to allow a different way of life.  All are treated as equally valid even if they don't have so much population.  This allows people to move freely, choose the life they want, instead of being tyrranized by the majority.

The Alaskan way of life is simply being treated as though it's equally valid as the New York way of life.  Are you saying it isn't?

A way of life doesn't have children. A way of life doesn't have a brain, or a personality. A way of life is just an abstract concept with no physical representation or conscious existence.

If we change a few arbitrary lines, Alaska or New York cease to exist. But no matter how we change the lines, there's still a total of 20,187,915 people involved. If 19,400,000+ of them want socialized medicine, and 700,000ish of them don't, why should we consider the two arguments deserving of equal (or nearly-equal) support?

Granted, a "way of life" is an emergent property of the behavior of many people. We must protect the right of people to express individualism and their cultural uniqueness wherever that expression does not limit the rights of others. As it stands, conservative, rural people have an unfair ability to curtail the rights of a much larger set of much more liberal people.

[scriver]

I don't think the UK has too much EU influence at the moment seeing as how we manage to keep marginalising ourselves (by, say, being the only one to reject the latest treaty).  If anything we're more likely to secede considering the Conservatives are now in the "anti-EU/ total nutbag alliance".

Doubtful. The only thing those opinions will amount to is more "the EU should cater to our needs!" sentiments. Look at the French elections right now, both candidates are serving their own versions of "the EU should do what we want it to".

[Sowelu]

If we change a few arbitrary lines, Alaska or New York cease to exist. But no matter how we change the lines, there's still a total of 20,187,915 people involved. If 19,400,000+ of them want socialized medicine, and 700,000ish of them don't, why should we consider the two arguments deserving of equal (or nearly-equal) support?

For the same reason that we can't take Canada's socialized medicine away from them because we're larger, and there's just an "arbitrary line" in between.

[GlyphGryph]

If we change a few arbitrary lines, Alaska or New York cease to exist. But no matter how we change the lines, there's still a total of 20,187,915 people involved. If 19,400,000+ of them want socialized medicine, and 700,000ish of them don't, why should we consider the two arguments deserving of equal (or nearly-equal) support?

When those 19,400,000+ are perfectly capable of implementing their desired solution in an attempt to convince the other 700,000 to do the same... yes. We should consider the arguments for or against the ability of the majority to exert its will on a remote minority, against the minorities wishes, rather than tossing aside half the arguments because the group is too small to matter.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I completely understand the "states' rights" viewpoint (even if I don't agree with the seemingly common reasons for speaking for it). I hate how the EU is able to overrule our laws and morals. Similarly, I despise the influence the UK, France and Germany hold over it. One of the major reasons the EU is doomed to fail (and why I want us to secede ASAP) is that the big players seems incapable to understand cooperation as anything other than "what's best for me".

Err... This was supposed to be related somehow.

The EU isn't necessarily doomed to fail. It just has to take the "Con" out of confederation.

Confederations never last. They're unstable entities that are too weak to act as they need to but too strong to put off those responsibilities.

Of course the constituents will never let that happen and thus the EU is actually doomed to fail, but in theory it could survive.

[Leafsnail]

Doubtful. The only thing those opinions will amount to is more "the EU should cater to our needs!" sentiments. Look at the French elections right now, both candidates are serving their own versions of "the EU should do what we want it to".

I am not for one second saying that the French aren't trying to milk the EU for their own benefit as much as possible, or that the Germans don't have virtually complete control over it.

When those 19,400,000+ are perfectly capable of implementing their desired solution in an attempt to convince the other 700,000 to do the same... yes. We should consider the arguments for or against the ability of the majority to exert its will on a remote minority, against the minorities wishes, rather than tossing aside half the arguments because the group is too small to matter.

How about in those cases where they aren't?  Can the 19,400,000+ people withdraw their troops from Afghanistan?  Can they get their leaders to international summits to discuss climate change?  For example, in the healthcare case there are serious issues considering that individual states do not have the border controls required to prevent those from neighbouring states coming and using their public healthcare in spite of not paying.

I'm not sure why the tyranny of a minority is meant to be better than a tyranny of the majority.  Unless you think that people in large states are inherently inferior you're just changing who gets to screw over who (and making it so that more people are screwed over).