3 ms·

I believe they did. There is no unity in force. There is unity in cooperation and mutual agreement. When 51% want something, it shouldn’t be so. It should nece

I believe they did. There is no unity in force. There is unity in cooperation and mutual agreement. When 51% want something, it shouldn’t be so. It should necessarily require more buy in. That’s precisely why the states were largely expected to govern themselves with federal power being less extreme. The divide that we see in the country today is caused by two sides trying to force their way on each other rather than allowing states to just...disagree. We’d all be a lot better off if our states ran the way we wanted and simply turned our nose up and joked about the ones we didn’t agree with, than trying to constantly force those other states to do things our way.

pksebben 6y ago
the shared burden of infrastructure makes that problematic. A huge chunk of the country would collapse if it didn't have the ability to externalize cost to other states, and taxing the coasts without representing their needs in the budget would kind of, like, be counter to the point, no?
- brightball 6y ago
  That seems like something that could gather a 2/3 vote.
johnwallz 6y ago
Well said! I agree 100%. When we look back to the Founders this is what we're talking about. A multi-layered Federal Republic without strong centralization. Centralization is what Progressives have been pushing on us bit by bit for 100 years and look at the mess we're in now. Every regime change in the Whitehouse pisses off 50% of the country. We're a large country with 50 independent states of differing geographies and political philosophies that s/b largely governing themselves. We're not a small country like Sweden. Why can't we have progressive states like CA and conservative states like TX. If CA wants healthcare they can implement it themselves and if TX doesn't then they don't have to do it for themselves. CA is the 5th largest economy in the world on their own. They dont need DC. I'm a conservative who crossed the border from MA into the Live Free or Die state of NH. Why do Progressives want to hammer a one size fits all solution down to all states from DC and ruin our freedoms like that?

pksebben 6y ago

the shared burden of infrastructure makes that problematic. A huge chunk of the country would collapse if it didn't have the ability to externalize cost to other states, and taxing the coasts without representing their needs in the budget would kind of, like, be counter to the point, no?

brightball 6y ago
That seems like something that could gather a 2/3 vote.

johnwallz 6y ago

Well said! I agree 100%. When we look back to the Founders this is what we're talking about. A multi-layered Federal Republic without strong centralization. Centralization is what Progressives have been pushing on us bit by bit for 100 years and look at the mess we're in now. Every regime change in the Whitehouse pisses off 50% of the country. We're a large country with 50 independent states of differing geographies and political philosophies that s/b largely governing themselves. We're not a small country like Sweden. Why can't we have progressive states like CA and conservative states like TX. If CA wants healthcare they can implement it themselves and if TX doesn't then they don't have to do it for themselves. CA is the 5th largest economy in the world on their own. They dont need DC. I'm a conservative who crossed the border from MA into the Live Free or Die state of NH. Why do Progressives want to hammer a one size fits all solution down to all states from DC and ruin our freedoms like that?