4 ms·

Sure, if you don't like local communities being able to make decisions on behalf of their citizens (or put another way: democracy), it must sound great.

systemvoltage 3y ago
I prefer balanced federalism. You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers – IMO this is the real problem in USA across all states. Federal agencies are in some ways more powerful and have unchecked powers – congress leaves a lot of leeway as they can't exactly dictate every single rule/regulation. Unelected people dictate vast majority of the day to day rules/regs. In regards to freedom, New Hamsphire/Florida ranks #1 or #2 usually in the freedom index across the board: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edition-2021.pdf https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edi... Texas is midway down the line and California is abysmally at 48th. Folks here are saying "Fascism!", I just find that very funny and ironic; if anything California tramples on people's rights more than any other state. Just look at the cases put forth the 9th circuit. We should encourage various levels of federalism in different states instead of hurling insults and shutting down the conversation (not you per se, but generally in liberal circles). Everyone is so dug in. Honestly as a Californian, I want to encourage more competition from other states. It feels like a giant monoculture destroying itself here.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  > You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers Honestly, I struggle with this. Constitutions, bills of rights, or similar documents in various democracies exist specifically to protect fundamental rights of citizens that can never be trampled on by any level of government. Beyond those codified rights, why shouldn't local nut jobs be allowed to pass insane laws if that's what people vote for? If those laws are truly insane, then isn't that what constitutional amendments are for? To me, the real problem is that those documents are so frozen that it's impossible to renegotiate the contract periodically, and so you end up being forced to hand over strong powers to higher levels of government (see: the voting rights act). > In regards to freedom, New Hamsphire/Florida ranks #1 or #2 usually in the freedom index across the board: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edi https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edi... Yeah, sorry, you'll forgive me if I discount this immediately. The Cato Institute has a very specific definition of "freedom" that I fundamentally disagree with. If you're a small government, anarcho-libertarian, Cato is gonna be your jam. If you, on the other hand, believe that government plays an important role in protecting freedoms (for example, Cato believes occupational licensing is fundamentally antithetical to "freedom", while I'd argue that it plays a critical role in reducing information asymmetry, thereby protecting the rights of consumers), you're definitely not gonna agree with Cato's approach. I know I don't. And, by the way, I would expect (hope) Cato would disagree with what Texas is doing, here, as those actions are trampling on the rights of local communities to govern themselves.
  - systemvoltage 3y ago
    Thanks, at least you're honest about your biases. I'll take CATO over anecdotal definitions of "freedom". Discounting it is almost poetic in Trumpian sense; rejecting anything regardless of substance if it doesn't align with his ideology.
    - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
      You clearly missed the point. Cato's definition is every bit as "anecdotal" as any other. It's not like they ascribe to some perfect, platonic ideal of "freedom". They just picked one set of lines and tradeoffs and definitions of "freedom" while ignoring others.

systemvoltage 3y ago

I prefer balanced federalism. You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers – IMO this is the real problem in USA across all states. Federal agencies are in some ways more powerful and have unchecked powers – congress leaves a lot of leeway as they can't exactly dictate every single rule/regulation. Unelected people dictate vast majority of the day to day rules/regs. In regards to freedom, New Hamsphire/Florida ranks #1 or #2 usually in the freedom index across the board: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edition-2021.pdf https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edi... Texas is midway down the line and California is abysmally at 48th. Folks here are saying "Fascism!", I just find that very funny and ironic; if anything California tramples on people's rights more than any other state. Just look at the cases put forth the 9th circuit. We should encourage various levels of federalism in different states instead of hurling insults and shutting down the conversation (not you per se, but generally in liberal circles). Everyone is so dug in. Honestly as a Californian, I want to encourage more competition from other states. It feels like a giant monoculture destroying itself here.

BaseballPhysics 3y ago
> You obviously can't have local nut jobs passing insane laws but same applies to top down federal powers Honestly, I struggle with this. Constitutions, bills of rights, or similar documents in various democracies exist specifically to protect fundamental rights of citizens that can never be trampled on by any level of government. Beyond those codified rights, why shouldn't local nut jobs be allowed to pass insane laws if that's what people vote for? If those laws are truly insane, then isn't that what constitutional amendments are for? To me, the real problem is that those documents are so frozen that it's impossible to renegotiate the contract periodically, and so you end up being forced to hand over strong powers to higher levels of government (see: the voting rights act). > In regards to freedom, New Hamsphire/Florida ranks #1 or #2 usually in the freedom index across the board: https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edi https://cdn.freedominthe50states.org/download/2021/print-edi... Yeah, sorry, you'll forgive me if I discount this immediately. The Cato Institute has a very specific definition of "freedom" that I fundamentally disagree with. If you're a small government, anarcho-libertarian, Cato is gonna be your jam. If you, on the other hand, believe that government plays an important role in protecting freedoms (for example, Cato believes occupational licensing is fundamentally antithetical to "freedom", while I'd argue that it plays a critical role in reducing information asymmetry, thereby protecting the rights of consumers), you're definitely not gonna agree with Cato's approach. I know I don't. And, by the way, I would expect (hope) Cato would disagree with what Texas is doing, here, as those actions are trampling on the rights of local communities to govern themselves.
- systemvoltage 3y ago
  Thanks, at least you're honest about your biases. I'll take CATO over anecdotal definitions of "freedom". Discounting it is almost poetic in Trumpian sense; rejecting anything regardless of substance if it doesn't align with his ideology.
  - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
    You clearly missed the point. Cato's definition is every bit as "anecdotal" as any other. It's not like they ascribe to some perfect, platonic ideal of "freedom". They just picked one set of lines and tradeoffs and definitions of "freedom" while ignoring others.