4 ms·

I'm glad to see states fighting back, finally. I was never really too sure if, from a purely academic point of view, I thought a stronger federal government ("u

I'm glad to see states fighting back, finally. I was never really too sure if, from a purely academic point of view, I thought a stronger federal government ("united we stand, divided we fall") or more independent states were a better "system". But I think the way the US is set up (districting, gerrymandering, redlined, electoral college, etc) makes it far too easy for fringe beliefs to take over and dictate policy. So having states simply being more independent puts up far more barriers to all of us just losing our freedom. I live in IL. (Not near Chicago). My kids public school only gets about 15% of its funding from the federal govt. We could just finally stop having our stupid flat income tax and make up the shortfall. It might set back the universal preschool system, perhaps (which would be a tragedy but better than complete destruction). Meanwhile, schools might not even exist in many other states if federal funding disappeared.

quotemstr 1y ago
[flagged]
- convolvatron 1y ago
  the right answer to ideological purity tests is not more ideological purity tests
  - quotemstr 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - patagurbon 1y ago
      An eye for an eye is not how scientific progress is made.
      - quotemstr 1y ago
        There's no conflict between 1) wishing nobody's eye be put out, and 2) thinking chronic and unrepentant eye-pokers have got it coming good and hard. The universities can stop the pain any time they want. All they have to do is recommit, seriously, to free speech and free pursuit of knowledge. What the universities are doing now is not conducive to scientific knowledge either. In fact, they produce a lot of anti-knowledge.
        patagurbon 1y ago
        What are “they” doing now that is not conducive to scientific knowledge? > they produce a lot of anti-knowledge Regardless of the hilarity of that phrase being associated with universities over the attention driven news and internet that is both: 1. Meaninglessly broad and intentionally vague 2. Part of the process of science. For decades most of the genome was believed to be garbage. It was through academic research that this knowledge has been rebutted and replaced not by politics or regulation. This identical process occurs from philosophy to gender studies and physics to climate science.
        ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >What the universities are doing now is not conducive to scientific knowledge either. In fact, they produce a lot of anti-knowledge. Asimov was talking about you and those like you when he said[0]: There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Your ignorance is not just as good as the knowledge of others, despite your protestations to the contrary. But at least you can be comforted that your ignorance is just more in a long tradition of ignorance, as ignominious as it might be. Booyah! USA! USA! USA! amirite? [0] https://www.azquotes.com/author/605-Isaac_Asimov https://www.azquotes.com/author/605-Isaac_Asimov
    - whoisthemachine 1y ago
      Are these university administrations the government? Because any private entity is free to censor as much as they want (as we have seen with many entities after Charlie Kirk's murder). Saying "this private entity censored so now the government can" is not the argument you think it is.
      - Levitz 1y ago
        We are not talking about freedoms the entities have, we are talking about what is right. The government surely has the freedom to allocate their funds in whatever way they please.
        whoisthemachine 1y ago
        Yes, in whatever way congress directs, and as long as it doesn't violate the constitution (if you want to change the constitution, you have to amend it). The executive branch is merely supposed to execute the law as congress writes it. I would be surprised it the law stated "if the entity does not follow the same ideology as the current occupant of the executive branch, then funds may be withheld", and such a law may be challenged on grounds of constitutionaliry...
      - wtcactus 1y ago
        This all measure is about making sure that private faculties can obey continue censoring whatever they want, as long as they don’t get public money. If they want to be free and private, they can do so with their own money.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  This comment is pretty vague and non-specific. What are these terrible "right" ideas that you object to? Go on, be specific and name them.
- mindslight 1y ago
  Blue favored groupthink was (and still is) a problem, but red flavored groupthink is even worse as it invariable devolves into fundamentalism. The fascist movement isn't one of reform, rather it's merely using valid criticisms of our society uncritically, to boost support for their regressive agenda - as if we should have never tried to progress in the first place. If you're really serious about "reform" as you're claiming to be, try dropping the axe you have to grind and instead standing up for our country and the hard-earned freedoms we do currently have - as imperfect as they are. As a libertarian who has long sang criticisms of our society and our government, I've certainly had to. I'd rather eat some humble pie and be on the right side of history than support all the issues I care about being perverted into some movement fundamentally aimed at societal suicide.
- thisisit 1y ago
  > Fight back against _what_? Its funny to see that you ask this question while being fully vague yourself. > I don't see anyone else trying. No one has tried "reforms" because people understand that in a free democracy every idea has its place. Even the most disliked ones. People who want to push an agenda simply fund studies - biased one at that. They never try this kind of authoritianism. Just leave to this government to try and bulldoze people into submission. I partially agree with you. Yes institutions have issues. But this is approaching affirmative action for conservatives. Requiring universities to bring in more conservatives and stop discrimination against them. If that is not enough even asking to give up the control in admissions. Despite all the issues you pointed out would you also say that conservatives are so underrepresented and discriminated that it requires government mandated affirmative action?
silisili 1y ago
I've always thought more state power was probably a good thing - the US is simply so huge and diverse in thought and religion that you'll always be upsetting a large swath of people no matter what you decide. That said, as a fly on the wall, my obvious observation from people at large is a direct correlation between how much power they believe states should have and whether or not they belong to the party in power. So it's definitely worth the exercise of seeing if you'd feel the same way still if your exact clone ran the federal government.
- pathartl 1y ago
  The primary issue with state power is human rights. If you don't guarantee certain rights, some other state will gladly exploit its citizens. The neverending struggle of course is what does one consider a human right.
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    If a few states work together to make interstate relocation easier, then this should be a self-correcting problem over time. As you mentioned, there is no universal agreement on human rights—the constitution enumerates some basic ones, but there is wide disagreement in interpretation even within these. If we want to avoid a constantly escalating national tug-of-war (inevitably leading IMHO to armed conflict) then local laws should be devolved to the states, with the federal government acting as referee between states and as a neutral anti-corruption enforcer. I don’t see how we get there, though. I think we may already be too far down the road of centralized power, which is likely to have very bad results for everyone in the end.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    The same can be said about the federal level, no matter which level you are at they can happily exploit you, but it is much easier to leave a smaller place than a larger one, so its very preferable to have these decisions at state level than federal level.
- patagurbon 1y ago
  There is a fundamental issue with this kind of federalism though in that it increases strife and could easily lead to civil war. Let’s say we get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and research funding at the federal level. What happens next? The West Coast and North East form compacts, companies, or nonprofits that provide healthcare, retirement and funding for their schools. The south, parts of the Midwest, and the plains fail to do so (at least to the same level) and within a generation we have two separate countries and war.
dfxm12 1y ago
More than state power vs federal power, we the people should hold the power. Two meta issues at play are gerrymandering and judges. Gerrymandering gives power to who the state legislators want. Federal and many state judges are appointed and serve for life. What good is states rights if your state passes a popular law and some federal judge or activist judge shoots it down because of who passed it? A big reason we even have to discuss this at all is because Washington clearly doesn't represent regular Americans' best interests or desires.
- ImJamal 1y ago
  Gerrymandering is just a symptom, not the problem. The US has had 435 house representatives since the Reapportionment Act of 1929. The population of the US during the 1930 census was about a third of what it is today. If we bumped it up to about 1300 representatives gerrymandering a district or two wouldn't really matter.
  - stubish 1y ago
    The software that gerrymanders 435 districts will just as happily gerrymander 1300. Since it is not an exact science, the higher number of districts may even help smooth things out and get the statistically desired outcome.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > If we bumped it up to about 1300 representatives gerrymandering a district or two wouldn't really matter Why? More lines means more opportunity for fuckery. Better: multi-member districts. You get better proportionality. And you reduce the number of lines that can be drawn.

quotemstr 1y ago

[flagged]

convolvatron 1y ago
the right answer to ideological purity tests is not more ideological purity tests
- quotemstr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - patagurbon 1y ago
    An eye for an eye is not how scientific progress is made.
    - quotemstr 1y ago
      There's no conflict between 1) wishing nobody's eye be put out, and 2) thinking chronic and unrepentant eye-pokers have got it coming good and hard. The universities can stop the pain any time they want. All they have to do is recommit, seriously, to free speech and free pursuit of knowledge. What the universities are doing now is not conducive to scientific knowledge either. In fact, they produce a lot of anti-knowledge.
      - patagurbon 1y ago
        What are “they” doing now that is not conducive to scientific knowledge? > they produce a lot of anti-knowledge Regardless of the hilarity of that phrase being associated with universities over the attention driven news and internet that is both: 1. Meaninglessly broad and intentionally vague 2. Part of the process of science. For decades most of the genome was believed to be garbage. It was through academic research that this knowledge has been rebutted and replaced not by politics or regulation. This identical process occurs from philosophy to gender studies and physics to climate science.
      - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        >What the universities are doing now is not conducive to scientific knowledge either. In fact, they produce a lot of anti-knowledge. Asimov was talking about you and those like you when he said[0]: There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Your ignorance is not just as good as the knowledge of others, despite your protestations to the contrary. But at least you can be comforted that your ignorance is just more in a long tradition of ignorance, as ignominious as it might be. Booyah! USA! USA! USA! amirite? [0] https://www.azquotes.com/author/605-Isaac_Asimov https://www.azquotes.com/author/605-Isaac_Asimov
  - whoisthemachine 1y ago
    Are these university administrations the government? Because any private entity is free to censor as much as they want (as we have seen with many entities after Charlie Kirk's murder). Saying "this private entity censored so now the government can" is not the argument you think it is.
    - Levitz 1y ago
      We are not talking about freedoms the entities have, we are talking about what is right. The government surely has the freedom to allocate their funds in whatever way they please.
      - whoisthemachine 1y ago
        Yes, in whatever way congress directs, and as long as it doesn't violate the constitution (if you want to change the constitution, you have to amend it). The executive branch is merely supposed to execute the law as congress writes it. I would be surprised it the law stated "if the entity does not follow the same ideology as the current occupant of the executive branch, then funds may be withheld", and such a law may be challenged on grounds of constitutionaliry...
    - wtcactus 1y ago
      This all measure is about making sure that private faculties can obey continue censoring whatever they want, as long as they don’t get public money. If they want to be free and private, they can do so with their own money.
ryandrake 1y ago
This comment is pretty vague and non-specific. What are these terrible "right" ideas that you object to? Go on, be specific and name them.
mindslight 1y ago
Blue favored groupthink was (and still is) a problem, but red flavored groupthink is even worse as it invariable devolves into fundamentalism. The fascist movement isn't one of reform, rather it's merely using valid criticisms of our society uncritically, to boost support for their regressive agenda - as if we should have never tried to progress in the first place. If you're really serious about "reform" as you're claiming to be, try dropping the axe you have to grind and instead standing up for our country and the hard-earned freedoms we do currently have - as imperfect as they are. As a libertarian who has long sang criticisms of our society and our government, I've certainly had to. I'd rather eat some humble pie and be on the right side of history than support all the issues I care about being perverted into some movement fundamentally aimed at societal suicide.
thisisit 1y ago
> Fight back against _what_? Its funny to see that you ask this question while being fully vague yourself. > I don't see anyone else trying. No one has tried "reforms" because people understand that in a free democracy every idea has its place. Even the most disliked ones. People who want to push an agenda simply fund studies - biased one at that. They never try this kind of authoritianism. Just leave to this government to try and bulldoze people into submission. I partially agree with you. Yes institutions have issues. But this is approaching affirmative action for conservatives. Requiring universities to bring in more conservatives and stop discrimination against them. If that is not enough even asking to give up the control in admissions. Despite all the issues you pointed out would you also say that conservatives are so underrepresented and discriminated that it requires government mandated affirmative action?

silisili 1y ago

I've always thought more state power was probably a good thing - the US is simply so huge and diverse in thought and religion that you'll always be upsetting a large swath of people no matter what you decide. That said, as a fly on the wall, my obvious observation from people at large is a direct correlation between how much power they believe states should have and whether or not they belong to the party in power. So it's definitely worth the exercise of seeing if you'd feel the same way still if your exact clone ran the federal government.

pathartl 1y ago
The primary issue with state power is human rights. If you don't guarantee certain rights, some other state will gladly exploit its citizens. The neverending struggle of course is what does one consider a human right.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  If a few states work together to make interstate relocation easier, then this should be a self-correcting problem over time. As you mentioned, there is no universal agreement on human rights—the constitution enumerates some basic ones, but there is wide disagreement in interpretation even within these. If we want to avoid a constantly escalating national tug-of-war (inevitably leading IMHO to armed conflict) then local laws should be devolved to the states, with the federal government acting as referee between states and as a neutral anti-corruption enforcer. I don’t see how we get there, though. I think we may already be too far down the road of centralized power, which is likely to have very bad results for everyone in the end.
- Jensson 1y ago
  The same can be said about the federal level, no matter which level you are at they can happily exploit you, but it is much easier to leave a smaller place than a larger one, so its very preferable to have these decisions at state level than federal level.
patagurbon 1y ago
There is a fundamental issue with this kind of federalism though in that it increases strife and could easily lead to civil war. Let’s say we get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and research funding at the federal level. What happens next? The West Coast and North East form compacts, companies, or nonprofits that provide healthcare, retirement and funding for their schools. The south, parts of the Midwest, and the plains fail to do so (at least to the same level) and within a generation we have two separate countries and war.

dfxm12 1y ago

More than state power vs federal power, we the people should hold the power. Two meta issues at play are gerrymandering and judges. Gerrymandering gives power to who the state legislators want. Federal and many state judges are appointed and serve for life. What good is states rights if your state passes a popular law and some federal judge or activist judge shoots it down because of who passed it? A big reason we even have to discuss this at all is because Washington clearly doesn't represent regular Americans' best interests or desires.

ImJamal 1y ago
Gerrymandering is just a symptom, not the problem. The US has had 435 house representatives since the Reapportionment Act of 1929. The population of the US during the 1930 census was about a third of what it is today. If we bumped it up to about 1300 representatives gerrymandering a district or two wouldn't really matter.
- stubish 1y ago
  The software that gerrymanders 435 districts will just as happily gerrymander 1300. Since it is not an exact science, the higher number of districts may even help smooth things out and get the statistically desired outcome.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > If we bumped it up to about 1300 representatives gerrymandering a district or two wouldn't really matter Why? More lines means more opportunity for fuckery. Better: multi-member districts. You get better proportionality. And you reduce the number of lines that can be drawn.