5 ms·

It is hard to say whether the problem is going to get better or worse. Many people live in an already precarious position, and this would only make matters wors

by II2II 5y ago

It is hard to say whether the problem is going to get better or worse. Many people live in an already precarious position, and this would only make matters worse. Both the left and the right already see the system as broken, even if they don't agree upon how it is broken or how to fix it. I would suggest that most of those people see themselves as moderates or at least representing the majority (whether or not they are is another question). Eventually things are going to boil over. We can only hope that it does so in a peaceful way.

marcusverus 5y ago
The problem is that we're trying to achieve a goal which is not possible with the tools at hand. There is no way to satisfy the right of all people to self-govern in a nation where half of the population wants a secular society with a European-style welfare system, and the other half wants a laissez-faire system that imposes Christian social mores. The goals of the left and right are not reconcilable. The underlying issue here is that democracy is not enough. To state it differently, democracy is a means to an end, with the 'end' being self-representation. Democracy is necessary to achieve self-representation, but it's not sufficient. An example: remember when The Don wanted to buy Greenland? Well, let's say the US bought Greenland. Their people, then, would be granted US Citizenship, including the right to vote. Throughout the transition, they would reside in democracies. One day they would stop voting in Danish elections and would instead vote in US elections. They would always be able to participate in the democratic process. They would also be extremely pissed off. Why, though? They had their say, didn't they? They voted in the elections, didn't they? But even though the process was democratic, the right of the people of Greenland to self-govern was not observed. They had democracy, but not self-representation. Folks in the US feel the same way. In the Pacific Northwest, there is a broad consensus that the state should run healthcare, and yet they don't have state-run healthcare. Why? Because they need the consent of folks who live thousands of miles away in Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida! They have democracy, but they don't have self-representation. When the tide turns and there is majority support, on the national level, for state-run healthcare, what happens in Oklahoma? We're going to force a national healthcare system on them when the vast majority of the citizenry abhor the idea of state healthcare. And why? Because, thousands of miles away in California, Oregon, and Washington, folks support the idea. That's democracy, sure, but it's not self-representation. The rash of democracies that have taken hold in the world over the last few centuries has been wonderful, but we'd be foolish to assume that we've perfected human governance. There are better, more representative forms of government out there that we need to seek out and implement. To make the next great leap in human governance, we need to acknowledge the limits of the systems that we currently have. We need to admit that over-large democracies are not conducive to actual self-representation. And we need to exorcise the ghosts of our monarchical forebears. Our governments don't own us, do they? Then why do we allow them to stifle and suppress democratic secession movements, like the recent one in Catalonia? To ensure that we are truly able to self-govern, we need to pick our governments, not just our representatives.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  > To ensure that we are truly able to self-govern, we need to pick our governments, not just our representatives. what does that mean in practice? i guess im having a hard time imagining what that would look like in concrete terms...
  - marcusverus 5y ago
    When you think about the power structure of our governments, power flows top-down; from National -> State -> Local government, which makes sense. But when deciding which local governments participate in which State governments, and which states participate in which national government (if any), these decisions should be managed bottom-up instead of top-down. Consider the situation in Oregon, where five rural counties have voted to leave the state of Oregon and to join the state of Idaho.[0] According to WaPo: > "Lawmakers in Oregon and Idaho would have to enact bills to redefine the states’ boundaries and redistrict their legislatures. They’d also have to muster the votes to override a potential veto from their respective governors. And then Congress would have to sign off on the move." In other words, these counties can only change states if they're able to get 320 million people to sign off on the change. That's crazy. Now, how to achieve this in practice? Ideally we would revert to the original Federal system (with a small, weak federal government and strong state governments) and allow for counties to move between states, but that seems unlikely. Alternatively, we could allow for counties to move between states, and allow States to self-organize into new federal/confederal nations, or to move between nations via some established process (i.e. referenda). These nations should coordinate at a supra-national level (like the EU) to facilitate commerce and free movement, and to allow for the settlement if nation-level disputes. [0]https://archive.is/l3tJG#selection-565.166-565.444 https://archive.is/l3tJG#selection-565.166-565.444
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > In other words, these counties can only change states if they're able to get 320 million people to sign off on the change. Huh? They need: (1) a simple majority of each legislative house in Idaho, which is 18+36=54 people (2) a simple majority of each legislative house in Colorado, which is 18+33=51 people, and (3) a simple majority of each House of Congress, which is 51+218=269 people for a total of 269+54+51=374 people. Your 320 million estimate is off by about 6 orders of magnitude. (Even if you make the rather unrrasonable assumption that they need to convince enough unique voters to guarantee the election of a sufficient majority in each involved legislature—i.e., you assume that every eligible voter treats every Idaho, Colorado, and federal legislative election as a single issue referendum on the issue—you’ll find that the number is a very small fraction of the ~240 million eligible voters in the US.)

by II2II 5y ago

marcusverus 5y ago

The problem is that we're trying to achieve a goal which is not possible with the tools at hand. There is no way to satisfy the right of all people to self-govern in a nation where half of the population wants a secular society with a European-style welfare system, and the other half wants a laissez-faire system that imposes Christian social mores. The goals of the left and right are not reconcilable. The underlying issue here is that democracy is not enough. To state it differently, democracy is a means to an end, with the 'end' being self-representation. Democracy is necessary to achieve self-representation, but it's not sufficient. An example: remember when The Don wanted to buy Greenland? Well, let's say the US bought Greenland. Their people, then, would be granted US Citizenship, including the right to vote. Throughout the transition, they would reside in democracies. One day they would stop voting in Danish elections and would instead vote in US elections. They would always be able to participate in the democratic process. They would also be extremely pissed off. Why, though? They had their say, didn't they? They voted in the elections, didn't they? But even though the process was democratic, the right of the people of Greenland to self-govern was not observed. They had democracy, but not self-representation. Folks in the US feel the same way. In the Pacific Northwest, there is a broad consensus that the state should run healthcare, and yet they don't have state-run healthcare. Why? Because they need the consent of folks who live thousands of miles away in Oklahoma, Texas, and Florida! They have democracy, but they don't have self-representation. When the tide turns and there is majority support, on the national level, for state-run healthcare, what happens in Oklahoma? We're going to force a national healthcare system on them when the vast majority of the citizenry abhor the idea of state healthcare. And why? Because, thousands of miles away in California, Oregon, and Washington, folks support the idea. That's democracy, sure, but it's not self-representation. The rash of democracies that have taken hold in the world over the last few centuries has been wonderful, but we'd be foolish to assume that we've perfected human governance. There are better, more representative forms of government out there that we need to seek out and implement. To make the next great leap in human governance, we need to acknowledge the limits of the systems that we currently have. We need to admit that over-large democracies are not conducive to actual self-representation. And we need to exorcise the ghosts of our monarchical forebears. Our governments don't own us, do they? Then why do we allow them to stifle and suppress democratic secession movements, like the recent one in Catalonia? To ensure that we are truly able to self-govern, we need to pick our governments, not just our representatives.

andrekandre 5y ago
> To ensure that we are truly able to self-govern, we need to pick our governments, not just our representatives. what does that mean in practice? i guess im having a hard time imagining what that would look like in concrete terms...
- marcusverus 5y ago
  When you think about the power structure of our governments, power flows top-down; from National -> State -> Local government, which makes sense. But when deciding which local governments participate in which State governments, and which states participate in which national government (if any), these decisions should be managed bottom-up instead of top-down. Consider the situation in Oregon, where five rural counties have voted to leave the state of Oregon and to join the state of Idaho.[0] According to WaPo: > "Lawmakers in Oregon and Idaho would have to enact bills to redefine the states’ boundaries and redistrict their legislatures. They’d also have to muster the votes to override a potential veto from their respective governors. And then Congress would have to sign off on the move." In other words, these counties can only change states if they're able to get 320 million people to sign off on the change. That's crazy. Now, how to achieve this in practice? Ideally we would revert to the original Federal system (with a small, weak federal government and strong state governments) and allow for counties to move between states, but that seems unlikely. Alternatively, we could allow for counties to move between states, and allow States to self-organize into new federal/confederal nations, or to move between nations via some established process (i.e. referenda). These nations should coordinate at a supra-national level (like the EU) to facilitate commerce and free movement, and to allow for the settlement if nation-level disputes. [0]https://archive.is/l3tJG#selection-565.166-565.444 https://archive.is/l3tJG#selection-565.166-565.444
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > In other words, these counties can only change states if they're able to get 320 million people to sign off on the change. Huh? They need: (1) a simple majority of each legislative house in Idaho, which is 18+36=54 people (2) a simple majority of each legislative house in Colorado, which is 18+33=51 people, and (3) a simple majority of each House of Congress, which is 51+218=269 people for a total of 269+54+51=374 people. Your 320 million estimate is off by about 6 orders of magnitude. (Even if you make the rather unrrasonable assumption that they need to convince enough unique voters to guarantee the election of a sufficient majority in each involved legislature—i.e., you assume that every eligible voter treats every Idaho, Colorado, and federal legislative election as a single issue referendum on the issue—you’ll find that the number is a very small fraction of the ~240 million eligible voters in the US.)