3 ms·

I think we would be better off taking the notion of 'state's rights', expanding it to 'city's rights', doing away with governors, and modifying Congress to comp

I think we would be better off taking the notion of 'state's rights', expanding it to 'city's rights', doing away with governors, and modifying Congress to compensate. Target federal power at concerns that cross cities and maintenance of current rights. Guarantee free travel across city lines and free engagement in legal activities in whatever city a person is standing in, and people will be free to choose their own destiny so to speak. The issue is not simply choice of candidates, it is that certain groups within the population have fundamental political differences that can't be compromised away. The political extremist see it as their objective to save everyone from themselves. See conservatives wanting to stop people from traveling to get abortions. See liberals insisting that abortion be available even where large parts of the population have religious beliefs that are against them. Doing this at the scale of cities makes it easier for individuals to escape from areas that they find objectionable while still not having to travel so far that it's difficult to maintain their current jobs and relationships. Don't want to deal with primitive conservative ideology? Move to the city. Don't want to deal with liberal snowflakes? Move out of the city. I'm sure independent areas will crop up as well.

vehemenz 4y ago
This sounds like a nightmare. Following this reasoning, all children would be subject the whims of their backwards city or rural enclave. Parents will have more of an ability to brainwash their kids, I suppose, but that's not what we usually mean by "liberty." We've already seen what happens at the state level (abortion, creationism). Allowing even smaller populations to further insulate themselves will only accelerate the cultural, intellectual, and moral decline of the Republican voter base. I'd rather see the government work to bring these people dignified lives, i.e., solving the problem instead of giving up.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Right, but then you also subject yourself to the whims of the federal government once “people I don’t like” get in charge. Democracy functions better on smaller, more homogeneous scales.
- aqsalose 4y ago
  >Following this reasoning, all children would be subject the whims of their backwards city or rural enclave. Parents will have more of an ability to brainwash their kids, I suppose, but that's not what we usually mean by "liberty." At least their whims affect only the children in the backwards city or rural enclave, which by definition is small. How much liberty there is in a system where all schools are subject to whims of a national government, which you can't hope to affect with your single one vote? No chance even if you, your spouse and friends all decide to weigh in. Sounds positively totalitarian. One can't even talk about tyranny of majority: In most Western democracies -- no matter if the electoral system is proportional or not -- the percentage of people who vote is so small that any government seldom was voted in by majority of the population, only by a plurality, anyway.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > This sounds like a nightmare. Following this reasoning, all children would be subject the whims of their backwards city or rural enclave. Parents will have more of an ability to brainwash their kids This doesn’t sound particularly different from rn.
- clejack 4y ago
  I appreciate your sentiment, but I think you fall into the very trap that leads to the current state of the world. I'm not one to promote doom and gloom, but we have to face reality and acknowledge the circumstances we find ourselves in. They are a bit doomy and a bit gloomy. I acknowledge that any action can have unintended consequences, but inaction and repetitive action will only lead to the same outcomes. The outcome I hope for is this: people will be forced to face the consequence of their political decisions. They will no longer be able to hide behind the complexity of the world. Right now a conservative can look at his state or the U.S. at large and blame any flaw on liberal ideology. "Things wouldn't be so bad if we could just control the liberals." "Things wouldn't be, so bad if my vote actually counted for something." The same is true for Liberals. You could argue that these people should educate themselves and be active participants in democracy, but "should" doesn't count for much; and their perception is not entirely unreasonable. To reiterate, your suggestions is to save them from themselves. They don't know any better--we have to bring them "dignified lives." Is it so hard to understand why people would take increasingly inflexible positions when on the opposite end of their desire, stands someone like you with such a holier-than-thou mindset? As an alternative to your suggestion, I wonder this: If you vote for a conservative, and 90% of the people around you vote for a conservative, and your mayor is conservative, and that mayor implements conservative policies, and you find that your life still isn't improving. Who do you have to blame now? You can't save people that don't want to be saved, and sometimes you can't save people that do want to be saved. Sometimes there is no value in trying because the results of a given sequence of actions create a foregone conclusion. I listen to conservative politicians talking about outlawing leaving a state to get an abortion. People freaked out over this joke of a coup (from an organizational standpoint) that happened not long ago, but you're not freaked out by this Orwellian garbage? With this at the forefront, I'd rather have small nodes of madness and sanity and give everyone a more realistic chance of reaching their idea of a sane space, than have state wide nodes of insanity for the vast majority of the country.
jibalt 4y ago
"See liberals insisting that abortion be available even where large parts of the population have religious beliefs that are against them." As well everyone, not just liberals, should insist.
- clejack 4y ago
  I'm not against abortion, so I could have used anything there, but I stuck with abortion to keep the topic consistent. The key take away is that the morality of the subject is evaluated by humans. One groups wants to control another group, to an extent that is unreasonable. Sure, I think the fairest solution at the scale of adults is to let the individual choose whether to get an abortion or not, but from a conservative perspective, you're dealing with two equivalent people, and perception is reality unfortunately.

vehemenz 4y ago

This sounds like a nightmare. Following this reasoning, all children would be subject the whims of their backwards city or rural enclave. Parents will have more of an ability to brainwash their kids, I suppose, but that's not what we usually mean by "liberty." We've already seen what happens at the state level (abortion, creationism). Allowing even smaller populations to further insulate themselves will only accelerate the cultural, intellectual, and moral decline of the Republican voter base. I'd rather see the government work to bring these people dignified lives, i.e., solving the problem instead of giving up.

ericmay 4y ago
Right, but then you also subject yourself to the whims of the federal government once “people I don’t like” get in charge. Democracy functions better on smaller, more homogeneous scales.
aqsalose 4y ago
>Following this reasoning, all children would be subject the whims of their backwards city or rural enclave. Parents will have more of an ability to brainwash their kids, I suppose, but that's not what we usually mean by "liberty." At least their whims affect only the children in the backwards city or rural enclave, which by definition is small. How much liberty there is in a system where all schools are subject to whims of a national government, which you can't hope to affect with your single one vote? No chance even if you, your spouse and friends all decide to weigh in. Sounds positively totalitarian. One can't even talk about tyranny of majority: In most Western democracies -- no matter if the electoral system is proportional or not -- the percentage of people who vote is so small that any government seldom was voted in by majority of the population, only by a plurality, anyway.
the_only_law 4y ago
> This sounds like a nightmare. Following this reasoning, all children would be subject the whims of their backwards city or rural enclave. Parents will have more of an ability to brainwash their kids This doesn’t sound particularly different from rn.
clejack 4y ago
I appreciate your sentiment, but I think you fall into the very trap that leads to the current state of the world. I'm not one to promote doom and gloom, but we have to face reality and acknowledge the circumstances we find ourselves in. They are a bit doomy and a bit gloomy. I acknowledge that any action can have unintended consequences, but inaction and repetitive action will only lead to the same outcomes. The outcome I hope for is this: people will be forced to face the consequence of their political decisions. They will no longer be able to hide behind the complexity of the world. Right now a conservative can look at his state or the U.S. at large and blame any flaw on liberal ideology. "Things wouldn't be so bad if we could just control the liberals." "Things wouldn't be, so bad if my vote actually counted for something." The same is true for Liberals. You could argue that these people should educate themselves and be active participants in democracy, but "should" doesn't count for much; and their perception is not entirely unreasonable. To reiterate, your suggestions is to save them from themselves. They don't know any better--we have to bring them "dignified lives." Is it so hard to understand why people would take increasingly inflexible positions when on the opposite end of their desire, stands someone like you with such a holier-than-thou mindset? As an alternative to your suggestion, I wonder this: If you vote for a conservative, and 90% of the people around you vote for a conservative, and your mayor is conservative, and that mayor implements conservative policies, and you find that your life still isn't improving. Who do you have to blame now? You can't save people that don't want to be saved, and sometimes you can't save people that do want to be saved. Sometimes there is no value in trying because the results of a given sequence of actions create a foregone conclusion. I listen to conservative politicians talking about outlawing leaving a state to get an abortion. People freaked out over this joke of a coup (from an organizational standpoint) that happened not long ago, but you're not freaked out by this Orwellian garbage? With this at the forefront, I'd rather have small nodes of madness and sanity and give everyone a more realistic chance of reaching their idea of a sane space, than have state wide nodes of insanity for the vast majority of the country.

jibalt 4y ago

"See liberals insisting that abortion be available even where large parts of the population have religious beliefs that are against them." As well everyone, not just liberals, should insist.

clejack 4y ago
I'm not against abortion, so I could have used anything there, but I stuck with abortion to keep the topic consistent. The key take away is that the morality of the subject is evaluated by humans. One groups wants to control another group, to an extent that is unreasonable. Sure, I think the fairest solution at the scale of adults is to let the individual choose whether to get an abortion or not, but from a conservative perspective, you're dealing with two equivalent people, and perception is reality unfortunately.