4 ms·

All such arguments about the constitution and federal power are just a waste of time. The constitution is so riddled with flaws that there's little point in at

by BrenBarn 10mo ago

All such arguments about the constitution and federal power are just a waste of time. The constitution is so riddled with flaws that there's little point in attempting to save the good parts. We absolutely should throw out a large proportion of the "rules" in the constitution. The idea that some policies are okay for state governments to do but not okay for the federal government to do also makes no real sense. It's just an arbitrary jurisdictional distraction from the substantive content of policies. Talking about "breaking the rules" in this context is like there's a basketball game where fans, coaches, and players are all kicking each other in the nuts and you're worried about calling double dribble.

AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
> The idea that some policies are okay for state governments to do but not okay for the federal government to do also makes no real sense. There are many issues on which not everyone agrees what should be done. If the federal government does them, the same solution is forced on everyone even if a large plurality of people would prefer something else and those people constitute the majority of various states, so it makes more sense to let each state decide for themselves. There is nothing stopping them from all doing the same thing if there was consensus. And when there isn't consensus, you get to see how each of the alternatives turn out when different states do different things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy But if the federal government is even allowed to do them then whichever faction has the federal majority imposes their will on everyone else and prevents that from happening. > Talking about "breaking the rules" in this context The post I responded to was the one that brought up "breaking the rules". My point is that you should follow the rules if you want to complain about others breaking them.
- BrenBarn 10mo ago
  > My point is that you should follow the rules if you want to complain about others breaking them. I would say the problem is people doing bad things, and the rules are disconnected from any substantive connection to what is good or bad, and from any essential connection to the idea that the people (not any apparatus of government) is the final arbiter of what should be done.
  - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
    The problem with appealing to "the people" is that they don't all agree what's good or bad, and indeed will give different answers to what is substantively the same question depending on how it's framed or what mechanism is being used to measure their preferences. You also need some rules to temper tyrannical majorities unless "51% of the vote means you get to oppress the minority" is your idea of a good time. And a lot of these are in the nature of a Ulysses pact. When nobody wants anybody to censor them, and everybody knows that they won't always be in the majority, we can form a general consensus that we all agree not to censor the opposition when we're in the majority and in exchange they can't censor anyone when they're in the majority. For that to work you need an effective mechanism to constrain the majority or some fool is going to steer the ship into the rocks as soon as they hear the Siren song. Then the broad consensus gets written into the constitution which in turn requires broad consensus to change. If nobody's playing dirty. Whereas if everybody's playing dirty then pretty clearly the checks and balances aren't working and we need some better ones.
    - BrenBarn 10mo ago
      I don't disagree with most of what you said. But a tyranny of the majority is still better than a tyranny of the minority. And yeah, pretty clearly the alleged checks and balances we have weren't the right ones. The problem is that the system we have set up enshrines the difficulty of changing those checks and balances as one of its primary features. That's why I think we're not going to get anywhere by trying to chip away at the edges of our problem within the existing constitutional framework.

AnthonyMouse 10mo ago

> The idea that some policies are okay for state governments to do but not okay for the federal government to do also makes no real sense. There are many issues on which not everyone agrees what should be done. If the federal government does them, the same solution is forced on everyone even if a large plurality of people would prefer something else and those people constitute the majority of various states, so it makes more sense to let each state decide for themselves. There is nothing stopping them from all doing the same thing if there was consensus. And when there isn't consensus, you get to see how each of the alternatives turn out when different states do different things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratories_of_democracy But if the federal government is even allowed to do them then whichever faction has the federal majority imposes their will on everyone else and prevents that from happening. > Talking about "breaking the rules" in this context The post I responded to was the one that brought up "breaking the rules". My point is that you should follow the rules if you want to complain about others breaking them.

BrenBarn 10mo ago
> My point is that you should follow the rules if you want to complain about others breaking them. I would say the problem is people doing bad things, and the rules are disconnected from any substantive connection to what is good or bad, and from any essential connection to the idea that the people (not any apparatus of government) is the final arbiter of what should be done.
- AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
  The problem with appealing to "the people" is that they don't all agree what's good or bad, and indeed will give different answers to what is substantively the same question depending on how it's framed or what mechanism is being used to measure their preferences. You also need some rules to temper tyrannical majorities unless "51% of the vote means you get to oppress the minority" is your idea of a good time. And a lot of these are in the nature of a Ulysses pact. When nobody wants anybody to censor them, and everybody knows that they won't always be in the majority, we can form a general consensus that we all agree not to censor the opposition when we're in the majority and in exchange they can't censor anyone when they're in the majority. For that to work you need an effective mechanism to constrain the majority or some fool is going to steer the ship into the rocks as soon as they hear the Siren song. Then the broad consensus gets written into the constitution which in turn requires broad consensus to change. If nobody's playing dirty. Whereas if everybody's playing dirty then pretty clearly the checks and balances aren't working and we need some better ones.
  - BrenBarn 10mo ago
    I don't disagree with most of what you said. But a tyranny of the majority is still better than a tyranny of the minority. And yeah, pretty clearly the alleged checks and balances we have weren't the right ones. The problem is that the system we have set up enshrines the difficulty of changing those checks and balances as one of its primary features. That's why I think we're not going to get anywhere by trying to chip away at the edges of our problem within the existing constitutional framework.