4 ms·

Not being American, things like that always confused me. But now I kind of look like america like a Russian doll, it's a bunch of tiny countries, inside slightl

Not being American, things like that always confused me. But now I kind of look like america like a Russian doll, it's a bunch of tiny countries, inside slightly bigger countries, inside even bigger countries all contained within one country populated by individuals who look at themselves as a country. And from the bottom up, each country believes they're the ruler of their country and don't like to be told by the countries higher up the totem what to do. To be honest though, i've always felt like the world would work a lot better if power were structured from the bottom up. Local areas have the highest priority in decisions regarding their area then each level up has less and less power and is focused more on the overall organizing of everything between these smaller areas and the rest of the world. The way it works in many places right now is backwards, especially in large countries. It ends up that decisions are made about areas hundreds or thousands of km away from the people affected by those decisions.

DoreenMichele 6y ago
In the US, there is a thing called The California Effect. California has a history of passing laws for California which end up getting adopted at the federal level. This is the origin story for environmental protection in this country. So probably that's a factor here. If you are in the federal government and you know California has the power to de facto dictate federal policy by passing a law at the state level, the only good defense is a proactive offense.
- grawprog 6y ago
  I've witnessed the California effect outside of California and America. I've seen the warnings on more than one thing 'this product contains substances known to be harmful in the state of California'. On things as innocuous as a crescent wrench...
  - gumby 6y ago
    This is no different from Europe’s ROHS rules which have helped people worldwide.
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      "Helped" is a bit of a stretch. One could (and many have) argue that the universal presence of the warnings mean that they are universally ignored. Wood and stone dust cause cancer. Coffee and alcohol may cause cancer. None of those things are on the same level as tobacco, tanning beds etc. There is a massive spectrum, and the labels themselves don't offer that information. As such, people depending on the labels may incorrectly assume that using a crescent wrench is as dangerous as smoking tobacco, or vice versa.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  That's a good example. Even with that case, you will find people who, even if supporting California on its right to promulgate its own air regulations, then turn around and object to other states doing something they don't like, using that same principle. It seems principles are principles to the extent we agree with them.
- nooyurrsdey 6y ago
  I think that's a fair counterbalance to the amount of power smaller states have at a federal level. Small rural states with similar ideals can form voting blocks and have the benefit of 2 Gauranteed Senators. That plus the electoral college method of presidential elections puts a ton of power in their hands. I'd call this a feature of the system. Ironically it's "states rights" and the pressure of adopting an existing system ("free market") that's serving the left instead of the right in this case.
vel0city 6y ago
To an extent this bottom up approach is somewhat how American federalism has historically worked. Chances are if you are to be stopped by a cop for breaking a law in the US, you're probably breaking a city/county/state law and not a federal law. The rules which touch people most often are largely the ones which happen on the local level. Things like theft, assault, speeding, blasting your music at 3:00 AM and keeping the neighbors up and what not are not illegal federally (unless you're stealing from a federal building) but are usually illegal at a more local level. For example, when Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy in Dallas Texas, Oswald did not violate a federal crime. There was no law on the books at the federal level which made it a crime to shoot the President. However, murder in the State of Texas was illegal, which is what Oswald was being charged with by Texas courts and by Texas law enforcement. This has become more and more muddied over time with the expansion of federal powers. More things have become illegal at the federal level, and federal courts have expanded the influence of the Bill of Rights over State laws (see Incorporation[0]). There is a good bit of debate in the US about this growth of federal powers and the role of federal laws in day to day life. Sometimes it is obviously a good thing, sometimes it a bit more complicated. Note in this comment I am not attempting to argue either way, just trying to share knowledge with someone not from the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...

DoreenMichele 6y ago

In the US, there is a thing called The California Effect. California has a history of passing laws for California which end up getting adopted at the federal level. This is the origin story for environmental protection in this country. So probably that's a factor here. If you are in the federal government and you know California has the power to de facto dictate federal policy by passing a law at the state level, the only good defense is a proactive offense.

grawprog 6y ago
I've witnessed the California effect outside of California and America. I've seen the warnings on more than one thing 'this product contains substances known to be harmful in the state of California'. On things as innocuous as a crescent wrench...
- gumby 6y ago
  This is no different from Europe’s ROHS rules which have helped people worldwide.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    "Helped" is a bit of a stretch. One could (and many have) argue that the universal presence of the warnings mean that they are universally ignored. Wood and stone dust cause cancer. Coffee and alcohol may cause cancer. None of those things are on the same level as tobacco, tanning beds etc. There is a massive spectrum, and the labels themselves don't offer that information. As such, people depending on the labels may incorrectly assume that using a crescent wrench is as dangerous as smoking tobacco, or vice versa.
supernova87a 6y ago
That's a good example. Even with that case, you will find people who, even if supporting California on its right to promulgate its own air regulations, then turn around and object to other states doing something they don't like, using that same principle. It seems principles are principles to the extent we agree with them.
nooyurrsdey 6y ago
I think that's a fair counterbalance to the amount of power smaller states have at a federal level. Small rural states with similar ideals can form voting blocks and have the benefit of 2 Gauranteed Senators. That plus the electoral college method of presidential elections puts a ton of power in their hands. I'd call this a feature of the system. Ironically it's "states rights" and the pressure of adopting an existing system ("free market") that's serving the left instead of the right in this case.

vel0city 6y ago

To an extent this bottom up approach is somewhat how American federalism has historically worked. Chances are if you are to be stopped by a cop for breaking a law in the US, you're probably breaking a city/county/state law and not a federal law. The rules which touch people most often are largely the ones which happen on the local level. Things like theft, assault, speeding, blasting your music at 3:00 AM and keeping the neighbors up and what not are not illegal federally (unless you're stealing from a federal building) but are usually illegal at a more local level. For example, when Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy in Dallas Texas, Oswald did not violate a federal crime. There was no law on the books at the federal level which made it a crime to shoot the President. However, murder in the State of Texas was illegal, which is what Oswald was being charged with by Texas courts and by Texas law enforcement. This has become more and more muddied over time with the expansion of federal powers. More things have become illegal at the federal level, and federal courts have expanded the influence of the Bill of Rights over State laws (see Incorporation[0]). There is a good bit of debate in the US about this growth of federal powers and the role of federal laws in day to day life. Sometimes it is obviously a good thing, sometimes it a bit more complicated. Note in this comment I am not attempting to argue either way, just trying to share knowledge with someone not from the US. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R...