3 ms·

Yes, but also we've eroded state and city rights in favor of federalism and standardization in the US as well. It's arguable that many steps in that direction h

by yannyu 1y ago

Yes, but also we've eroded state and city rights in favor of federalism and standardization in the US as well. It's arguable that many steps in that direction have been for the better, but the consequence still remains that we've eroded the power of smaller organizations as a result. You're correct to note that this phenomenon crosses all aspects of life in the US, whether talking about churches, PTAs, book clubs, business, forums, fraternities, and politics. There is hardly a part of our lives anymore that isn't intruded on by national narratives anymore. There is a very fundamental question of why that is, why it's allowed, and who benefits from it.

nradov 1y ago
Cities (and other types of local governments) never really had any legal rights on their own. They have always been creatures of the states.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bigstrat2003 1y ago
Federalism is having power divided, so we have gone away from federalism, not towards it. And I personally believe very strongly that it has been disastrous for our nation to do so.
- dripdry45 1y ago
  I would argue. This is too brought a stroke. Federalism has been stripped away, yes, but if it had been done with some other rules in place and notifications so that smaller organizations can effectively pick up the baton, I would argue it could have worked better.
- int_19h 1y ago
  In US context it's somewhat ambiguous because of the historical use of the term "Federalist" to denote supporters of the new Constitution (which was more centralized than the Articles of Confederation) and "Anti-Federalist" to denote the opposition.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> Yes, but also we've eroded state and city rights in favor of federalism and standardization in the US as well. It's arguable that many steps in that direction have been for the better, but the consequence still remains that we've eroded the power of smaller organizations as a result. Oh, that one is easy. The original US constitution gave the federal government the right to preempt state laws in matters within its enumerated powers, but placed strict limits on what those powers are, and created a check against federal overreach by creating the US Senate, which originally had its members elected by state legislatures who would thereby send Senators disinclined to let the federal government usurp their powers. Then populists amended the constitution to cause US Senators to be directly elected, and since US Supreme Court Justices are confirmed by the Senate, that in turn allowed them to replace the Justices with ones who would do things like read the inter-state commerce clause as covering non-commerce happening entirely within a single state. Having eliminated any meaningful constitutional restrictions on federal power, federal officials were then captured by large corporations to enact federal regulations that only those large corporations can comply with, and to erode any federal constraints on corporate mergers while still preempting the states from imposing them either. You can't give the central government the authority to do something and then expect them not to. If you don't want them to do something, you need something actively constraining them from doing it. Which was the US Senate until it wasn't.
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  I am not criticizing your historical explanation or your comment, but I would like to make a footnote: Sometimes narratives like these which lay out a simple cause-and-effect between political decisions and modern outcomes can make people think that reverting the situation is a solution to modern outcomes, but that is rarely the case. Everything evolves, and the solution to modern problems is to find a solution that works within modern constraints.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    There is more than one possible structure to sustain an active constraint against power grabs, to be sure. But a Senate elected by the state governments was effective in doing it for as long as it was in place. There are other things that could work instead, but sometimes the old thing only stopped working because it stopped happening. And either way you would still need the something else to be used instead rather than continuing the status quo which is objectively not achieving the intended purpose.

by yannyu 1y ago

nradov 1y ago

Cities (and other types of local governments) never really had any legal rights on their own. They have always been creatures of the states.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bigstrat2003 1y ago

Federalism is having power divided, so we have gone away from federalism, not towards it. And I personally believe very strongly that it has been disastrous for our nation to do so.

dripdry45 1y ago
I would argue. This is too brought a stroke. Federalism has been stripped away, yes, but if it had been done with some other rules in place and notifications so that smaller organizations can effectively pick up the baton, I would argue it could have worked better.
int_19h 1y ago
In US context it's somewhat ambiguous because of the historical use of the term "Federalist" to denote supporters of the new Constitution (which was more centralized than the Articles of Confederation) and "Anti-Federalist" to denote the opposition.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> Yes, but also we've eroded state and city rights in favor of federalism and standardization in the US as well. It's arguable that many steps in that direction have been for the better, but the consequence still remains that we've eroded the power of smaller organizations as a result. Oh, that one is easy. The original US constitution gave the federal government the right to preempt state laws in matters within its enumerated powers, but placed strict limits on what those powers are, and created a check against federal overreach by creating the US Senate, which originally had its members elected by state legislatures who would thereby send Senators disinclined to let the federal government usurp their powers. Then populists amended the constitution to cause US Senators to be directly elected, and since US Supreme Court Justices are confirmed by the Senate, that in turn allowed them to replace the Justices with ones who would do things like read the inter-state commerce clause as covering non-commerce happening entirely within a single state. Having eliminated any meaningful constitutional restrictions on federal power, federal officials were then captured by large corporations to enact federal regulations that only those large corporations can comply with, and to erode any federal constraints on corporate mergers while still preempting the states from imposing them either. You can't give the central government the authority to do something and then expect them not to. If you don't want them to do something, you need something actively constraining them from doing it. Which was the US Senate until it wasn't.

Eisenstein 1y ago
I am not criticizing your historical explanation or your comment, but I would like to make a footnote: Sometimes narratives like these which lay out a simple cause-and-effect between political decisions and modern outcomes can make people think that reverting the situation is a solution to modern outcomes, but that is rarely the case. Everything evolves, and the solution to modern problems is to find a solution that works within modern constraints.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  There is more than one possible structure to sustain an active constraint against power grabs, to be sure. But a Senate elected by the state governments was effective in doing it for as long as it was in place. There are other things that could work instead, but sometimes the old thing only stopped working because it stopped happening. And either way you would still need the something else to be used instead rather than continuing the status quo which is objectively not achieving the intended purpose.