3 ms·

> This idea doesn't get enough application. It gets far too much application. We literally put down a rebellion and rewrote the Constitution over this. It didn

> This idea doesn't get enough application. It gets far too much application. We literally put down a rebellion and rewrote the Constitution over this. It didn't work before and it won't work now.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
On the contrary, it's worked well in the past and it's also working right now. What's the problem supposed to be?
- torstenvl 5y ago
  There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. If you want rural America to rise up in rebellion again, I mean, I guess go for it. But there's a specific reason the vast majority of state capitals are in comparatively rural areas: to prevent exactly the kind of division you're advocating for. This was a hard-won lesson in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. I guess you could call this true, but only in the sense that there has never been any system of any kind that didn't end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. The normal pattern historically is that the city's hinterlands are subject to the city's rule. You never see the hinterlands ruling the city.
  - jolux 5y ago
    > There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. Totally incorrect. Berlin and Hamburg are states right now.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      According to the Wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion ), Shays' Rebellion was prompted by taxes being set at a level well beyond farmers' ability to pay. This is an incredibly common motive for revolt. But it escapes me how torstenvl thinks it's related to cities constituting their own governmental units.
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        I just reviewed that Wikipedia page, and it seems accurate to my account. May I suggest you re-read it? It had nothing to do with the level of taxes, but with the insistence on following the urban mercantile paradigm, and, when farmers couldn't, forcibly taking their land from them. "The economy during the American Revolutionary War was largely subsistence agriculture.... Some residents in these areas had few assets beyond their land, and they bartered.... In contrast, there was a market economy in the more economically developed coastal areas of Massachusetts Bay.... The state government was dominated by this merchant class.... European business partners ... insisted that they pay for goods with hard currency, despite the country-wide shortage of such currency. Merchants began to demand the same from... those operating in the market towns in the state's interior.... The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands... and some began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations."
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        > I just reviewed that Wikipedia page, and it seems accurate to my account. May I suggest you re-read it? You didn't actually give an account. But the quote you pulled describes farmers being taxed at a level they are incapable of paying. It appears that you would like to use that to support the claim "it had nothing to do with the level of taxes", somehow. You'd need to explain how.
        torstenvl 5y ago
        I did, and in explicit detail. You're misreading the text, which is about a qualitative issue, not a quantitative one. It has nothing to do with level of taxation but with enforcing an urban mercantile paradigm of taxation, one that was literally impossible to meet and for which failure to meet it resulted in execution by starvation.

> This idea doesn't get enough application. It gets far too much application. We literally put down a rebellion and rewrote the Constitution over this. It didn't work before and it won't work now.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

On the contrary, it's worked well in the past and it's also working right now. What's the problem supposed to be?

torstenvl 5y ago
There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. If you want rural America to rise up in rebellion again, I mean, I guess go for it. But there's a specific reason the vast majority of state capitals are in comparatively rural areas: to prevent exactly the kind of division you're advocating for. This was a hard-won lesson in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. I guess you could call this true, but only in the sense that there has never been any system of any kind that didn't end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. The normal pattern historically is that the city's hinterlands are subject to the city's rule. You never see the hinterlands ruling the city.
- jolux 5y ago
  > There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. Totally incorrect. Berlin and Hamburg are states right now.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    According to the Wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion ), Shays' Rebellion was prompted by taxes being set at a level well beyond farmers' ability to pay. This is an incredibly common motive for revolt. But it escapes me how torstenvl thinks it's related to cities constituting their own governmental units.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      I just reviewed that Wikipedia page, and it seems accurate to my account. May I suggest you re-read it? It had nothing to do with the level of taxes, but with the insistence on following the urban mercantile paradigm, and, when farmers couldn't, forcibly taking their land from them. "The economy during the American Revolutionary War was largely subsistence agriculture.... Some residents in these areas had few assets beyond their land, and they bartered.... In contrast, there was a market economy in the more economically developed coastal areas of Massachusetts Bay.... The state government was dominated by this merchant class.... European business partners ... insisted that they pay for goods with hard currency, despite the country-wide shortage of such currency. Merchants began to demand the same from... those operating in the market towns in the state's interior.... The rural farming population was generally unable to meet the demands... and some began to lose their land and other possessions when they were unable to fulfill their debt and tax obligations."
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        > I just reviewed that Wikipedia page, and it seems accurate to my account. May I suggest you re-read it? You didn't actually give an account. But the quote you pulled describes farmers being taxed at a level they are incapable of paying. It appears that you would like to use that to support the claim "it had nothing to do with the level of taxes", somehow. You'd need to explain how.
        torstenvl 5y ago
        I did, and in explicit detail. You're misreading the text, which is about a qualitative issue, not a quantitative one. It has nothing to do with level of taxation but with enforcing an urban mercantile paradigm of taxation, one that was literally impossible to meet and for which failure to meet it resulted in execution by starvation.