29 ms·

Except we have no problem with such diverse policy in other federations like the eu.

Retric 5y ago
The EU is less than 30 and has already lost a member. If you accept membership flexibility then extreme diversity is much easier to accommodate.
- iammisc 5y ago
  The civil war was all about membership flexibility. Is it any surprise that the losers wanted their 'divetsity' to be accommodated. Frankly we're heading down the path of membership flexibility if the next few years don't bring about significant change.
  - rat87 5y ago
    the civil war was about slavery If anything the federal government was too accommodating and it still wasn't enough for the slave masters who dominated southern politics
    - iammisc 5y ago
      Sure it was about slavery as the wedge issue over which to decide whether you can leave the union. This sort of reactionary rhetoric just skirts over the surface. It's not like the confederacy was fighting for slavery and to be part of the union. Both Kentucky and Delaware were happy with the status quo. The confederacy wanted both slavery and to leave the union, which they perceived to be their right. The federal government at the time was much smaller than the current one and much less empowered.
      - watwut 5y ago
        The union was good for them as long as union was supporting the slavery. They were perfectly ok with forcing free states to return escaped slaves. They were perfectly ok with the system in which north blacks could be kidnaped to slavery and had little legal recours. The union stopped being good enough for them, when it stopped being perfect.
        iammisc 5y ago
        Correct. Just like the eu was good for the uk until they decided it wasn't. Except the issue of secession was settled in the affirmative there and in the negative here. You'd be hard pressed to argue the confederacy wanted to take over the union and then impose slavery on the free states. I mean, you could make the argument, but it's more likely to me they simply wanted to leave and continue enslaving people. I don't know how this turned into a discussion on slavery. The issue was secession. The civil war answered that us states cannot secede. Itll be interesting to see how the dynamic in the eu changes since this is a possibility there (although I'm doubtful they'd let a continental member leave).
        pmyteh 5y ago
        All states have a right to leave the EU by treaty - it was inserted to defuse a previous bout of Euroscepticism that argued by analogy with the US civil war that union author a secession right was tyranny. I can't see its use being refused: that would disintegrate the bloc. And there was no question that we (the Brits) wouldn't be allowed to, so the precedent has been set. I would imagine a few tweaks to the Article 50 exit mechanism will be made next time the treaties are revised - there are some game theory problems in the current trigger mechanism and the timescales set down turned out to be too short in practice - but it's no longer in dispute on principle.
        iammisc 5y ago
        > but it's no longer in dispute on principle. It was also not in dispute in the first constitution of the united states, but they just did away with that for funsies (I'm being facetious). I imagine we'll see something similar in the EU as the bloc becomes more integrated.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
xxpor 5y ago
You absolutely have a ton of problems. How many things don't launch in the EU due to differing regulations and languages?
rat87 5y ago
But we're not like the EU We are a single nation
- int_19h 5y ago
  Speaking as a foreigner who immigrated to the US, I don't see Americans as a single nation. Maybe that was the case at some point in the past, but there are too many cultural divisions by now that transcend compatriotism.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    It was never the case. If anything Americans are more homogeneous now than ever.
    - techbio 5y ago
      Interesting but counterintuitive, at least to me. How do you determine homogeneity is this sense? What evidence suggests this to you?
      - iammisc 5y ago
        The rise of national chain stores and mass media. In the past, if you traveled from San Francisco to new Orleans you would experience an entirely different set of stores, a new dialect, new customs, and frankly a new language. Even the difference between California and Oregon is stark. California being mainly Hispanic and Oregon being mainly Nordic and with lots of Slavic influence. The names change and even the languages do. I'd never see Russian in California but it's a regular occurrence in Oregon. EDIT: By no means am I suggesting though that Americans do not have fondness for one another. I just think the relationship between a rural Alabaman and an urban Californian is more like the relationship between two citizens of differing EU countries. We certainly have a shared culture of sorts, and we will defend each other in the face of non-Americans, but there are cultural differences that cannot be simply glossed over.
- kown7 5y ago

The EU is less than 30 and has already lost a member. If you accept membership flexibility then extreme diversity is much easier to accommodate.

iammisc 5y ago
The civil war was all about membership flexibility. Is it any surprise that the losers wanted their 'divetsity' to be accommodated. Frankly we're heading down the path of membership flexibility if the next few years don't bring about significant change.
- rat87 5y ago
  the civil war was about slavery If anything the federal government was too accommodating and it still wasn't enough for the slave masters who dominated southern politics
  - iammisc 5y ago
    Sure it was about slavery as the wedge issue over which to decide whether you can leave the union. This sort of reactionary rhetoric just skirts over the surface. It's not like the confederacy was fighting for slavery and to be part of the union. Both Kentucky and Delaware were happy with the status quo. The confederacy wanted both slavery and to leave the union, which they perceived to be their right. The federal government at the time was much smaller than the current one and much less empowered.
    - watwut 5y ago
      The union was good for them as long as union was supporting the slavery. They were perfectly ok with forcing free states to return escaped slaves. They were perfectly ok with the system in which north blacks could be kidnaped to slavery and had little legal recours. The union stopped being good enough for them, when it stopped being perfect.
      - iammisc 5y ago
        Correct. Just like the eu was good for the uk until they decided it wasn't. Except the issue of secession was settled in the affirmative there and in the negative here. You'd be hard pressed to argue the confederacy wanted to take over the union and then impose slavery on the free states. I mean, you could make the argument, but it's more likely to me they simply wanted to leave and continue enslaving people. I don't know how this turned into a discussion on slavery. The issue was secession. The civil war answered that us states cannot secede. Itll be interesting to see how the dynamic in the eu changes since this is a possibility there (although I'm doubtful they'd let a continental member leave).
        pmyteh 5y ago
        All states have a right to leave the EU by treaty - it was inserted to defuse a previous bout of Euroscepticism that argued by analogy with the US civil war that union author a secession right was tyranny. I can't see its use being refused: that would disintegrate the bloc. And there was no question that we (the Brits) wouldn't be allowed to, so the precedent has been set. I would imagine a few tweaks to the Article 50 exit mechanism will be made next time the treaties are revised - there are some game theory problems in the current trigger mechanism and the timescales set down turned out to be too short in practice - but it's no longer in dispute on principle.
        iammisc 5y ago
        > but it's no longer in dispute on principle. It was also not in dispute in the first constitution of the united states, but they just did away with that for funsies (I'm being facetious). I imagine we'll see something similar in the EU as the bloc becomes more integrated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

xxpor 5y ago

You absolutely have a ton of problems. How many things don't launch in the EU due to differing regulations and languages?

rat87 5y ago

But we're not like the EU We are a single nation

int_19h 5y ago
Speaking as a foreigner who immigrated to the US, I don't see Americans as a single nation. Maybe that was the case at some point in the past, but there are too many cultural divisions by now that transcend compatriotism.
- iammisc 5y ago
  It was never the case. If anything Americans are more homogeneous now than ever.
  - techbio 5y ago
    Interesting but counterintuitive, at least to me. How do you determine homogeneity is this sense? What evidence suggests this to you?
    - iammisc 5y ago
      The rise of national chain stores and mass media. In the past, if you traveled from San Francisco to new Orleans you would experience an entirely different set of stores, a new dialect, new customs, and frankly a new language. Even the difference between California and Oregon is stark. California being mainly Hispanic and Oregon being mainly Nordic and with lots of Slavic influence. The names change and even the languages do. I'd never see Russian in California but it's a regular occurrence in Oregon. EDIT: By no means am I suggesting though that Americans do not have fondness for one another. I just think the relationship between a rural Alabaman and an urban Californian is more like the relationship between two citizens of differing EU countries. We certainly have a shared culture of sorts, and we will defend each other in the face of non-Americans, but there are cultural differences that cannot be simply glossed over.
kown7 5y ago