6 ms·

>For the land of the free, some US rules are a shock to me. A few things. 1. We are the Land of Liberty, and liberty is described by our founders as "Freedom

>For the land of the free, some US rules are a shock to me. A few things. 1. We are the Land of Liberty, and liberty is described by our founders as "Freedom from onerous government intrusion", not anarchy. People get hung-up on 'freedom' and don't understand that Liberty is the core American value, which is called "freedom" but which is really Liberty. 2. US Freedom is misinterpreted to mean individual freedom at all costs. US Freedom is not just individual freedom, it's local rule and local soverignity. People often don't realize that the US has a dual-sovereign system where States and the Federal government share soverignity. This is a critical factor in "freedom". Going further, counties, towns and local governments have a lot more freedom to rule as they please than you might think. You'd think, it should all be top down federal law to ensure equity, but in reality, every county is it's own fiefdom, especially in more lax states, as it is states that reign in local governments, not the feds. So, when you consider American liberty to mean respecting individual, local, state and federal authority, and not just individual total freedom, you can see a system designed to put lots of power in the hands of local governments, which actually creates localized zones of not-so-freedom! After all, the US is free enough where counties and cities can enforce a lot of silly things!

tetrep 8y ago
> US Freedom is misinterpreted to mean individual freedom at all costs. US Freedom is not just individual freedom, it's local rule and local soverignity. Not even that local. With the few exceptions from the Constitution, U.S. states wield supreme power and can override any actual local attempt at governing. Freedom is freedom for the States, not the people.
- squirrelicus 8y ago
  This is correct. Or was, until article 1 section 8 and the 14th amendment were reinterpreted to mean the 10th amendment de facto obsolete. Which is crazy btw. I hear a lot of people saying "I'm not a tenther". Like, oh really, I didn't know I could own slaves again just by being "not a thirteenther" Humans are weird.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > Not even that local. With the few exceptions from the Constitution Disagree. A perfect example is the subject of the article you're commenting on - zoning laws.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    Zoning power is delegated from states to municipalities, but this is not required. States can and do impose limits.
dionidium 8y ago
> People often don't realize that the US has a dual-sovereign system where States and the Federal government share soverignity. This is a critical factor in "freedom". Every complaint about the Electoral College is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of this aspect of our system of government. Living in NYC now after 30+ years in Missouri, I'm more convinced than ever that this is a critically important check on mob rule and that the implementation of a nationwide popular vote would be a disaster for our democracy.
- aurailious 8y ago
  The Electoral College is a terrible system for trying to resist mob rule. It was never designed for such a thing and trying to backport that reason onto it is dumb bullshit.
  - mfringel 8y ago
    I'm inclined to agree, but can you say more about that?
    - alistairSH 8y ago
      The EC was arguably created (in it's existing format) to protect the interests of southern, slave-owning states. At the time, roughly analogous to resisting tyranny of the majority (as the urban north had more people, especially as slaves weren't fully recognized as people), but not exactly. And we should not forget that the balance of the EC (as it relates to the ratio of Senators and Congressmen to residents) has swung hugely in favor of rural states. As the number of residents per district has grown, with a capped number of Congressmen, states like CA and TX have effectively lost representation. If we adjusted the size of a Congressional district down to match the population of the smallest state, and increased the size of the house accordingly, the large states would pick up quite a few Congressmen, and therefore Electors.
      - dionidium 8y ago
        1. I take your point regarding the EC's pro-slavery origins, but it doesn't invalidate the larger purpose. People can wield good tools for bad causes. 2. I also take your point about proportionality, but, again, it doesn't invalidate the larger purpose (nor is it an argument for a nationwide popular vote). If the proportions are wrong, then the correction is to adjust the proportions.

tetrep 8y ago

> US Freedom is misinterpreted to mean individual freedom at all costs. US Freedom is not just individual freedom, it's local rule and local soverignity. Not even that local. With the few exceptions from the Constitution, U.S. states wield supreme power and can override any actual local attempt at governing. Freedom is freedom for the States, not the people.

squirrelicus 8y ago
This is correct. Or was, until article 1 section 8 and the 14th amendment were reinterpreted to mean the 10th amendment de facto obsolete. Which is crazy btw. I hear a lot of people saying "I'm not a tenther". Like, oh really, I didn't know I could own slaves again just by being "not a thirteenther" Humans are weird.
kodablah 8y ago
> Not even that local. With the few exceptions from the Constitution Disagree. A perfect example is the subject of the article you're commenting on - zoning laws.
- closeparen 8y ago
  Zoning power is delegated from states to municipalities, but this is not required. States can and do impose limits.

dionidium 8y ago

> People often don't realize that the US has a dual-sovereign system where States and the Federal government share soverignity. This is a critical factor in "freedom". Every complaint about the Electoral College is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of this aspect of our system of government. Living in NYC now after 30+ years in Missouri, I'm more convinced than ever that this is a critically important check on mob rule and that the implementation of a nationwide popular vote would be a disaster for our democracy.

aurailious 8y ago
The Electoral College is a terrible system for trying to resist mob rule. It was never designed for such a thing and trying to backport that reason onto it is dumb bullshit.
- mfringel 8y ago
  I'm inclined to agree, but can you say more about that?
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    The EC was arguably created (in it's existing format) to protect the interests of southern, slave-owning states. At the time, roughly analogous to resisting tyranny of the majority (as the urban north had more people, especially as slaves weren't fully recognized as people), but not exactly. And we should not forget that the balance of the EC (as it relates to the ratio of Senators and Congressmen to residents) has swung hugely in favor of rural states. As the number of residents per district has grown, with a capped number of Congressmen, states like CA and TX have effectively lost representation. If we adjusted the size of a Congressional district down to match the population of the smallest state, and increased the size of the house accordingly, the large states would pick up quite a few Congressmen, and therefore Electors.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      1. I take your point regarding the EC's pro-slavery origins, but it doesn't invalidate the larger purpose. People can wield good tools for bad causes. 2. I also take your point about proportionality, but, again, it doesn't invalidate the larger purpose (nor is it an argument for a nationwide popular vote). If the proportions are wrong, then the correction is to adjust the proportions.