3 ms·

I'll keep my comment briefer than before. :-) Unfortunately I think we are talking past each other. The basic issue is that you are taking the constitution a

by BrenBarn 10mo ago

I'll keep my comment briefer than before. :-) Unfortunately I think we are talking past each other. The basic issue is that you are taking the constitution as a given, but my questions are about how government should be, not how it is. In my view, if you believe that our system of government is actually a good democratic system, you should be able to explain how it serves democracy better than possible alternatives; and if our system is not a good democratic system, then it doesn't really matter what the constitution says, because we should instead focus on what it should say. An argument along the lines of "the constitution says so" is nothing but an appeal to authority. So no, I don't care that "states" is in the name of the country, nor do I care that the constitution says stuff about states, nor do I care about keeping the union together. Just about the only thing in the constitution that I wholeheartedly agree with is that the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare. :-) So I'm interested in what is the best way to do that, and everything is on the table in terms of retaining, throwing out, or adding whatever we want to the constitution to make it better. In that line, my own view is basically the opposite of most of what you said above. :-) I believe that entrenching "states" as entities in the way the constitution does was a bad idea. Sure, we need different levels of government. But there's no reason to privilege states in the way we do, especially since their boundaries and accessions are at best arbitrary and at worst the result of political machinations. Democracy is about what people want, and I don't think our existing federal system is the best way to get at that.

notepad0x90 10mo ago
There is how things should be and how they are. These are not separate things because how you enact the changes you want is either through existing ways of doing things, or war. I don't think I can discuss about theoretical forms of government here and now, but in the US you have think in practical terms. That means what Americans expect, want and can tolerate. I'm a huge advocate of a constitutional convention to update the constitution for example. But concepts like a "state", in practical terms, can't be changed without a civil war. Even a state breaking up into smaller pieces on its own means it gets more representation than others now. > So no, I don't care that "states" is in the name of the country, nor do I care that the constitution says stuff about states, nor do I care about keeping the union together. Theoretically, I don't care either, in reality, I don't want to go through war, nor do I want millions to die to get any better form of government in place. Anything practical will require generations of campaigning, and actually convincing people that it is more important than more pressing matters. And frankly, it's too divergent of a topic from the original thread. > the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare That's not even true. Are you talking about the declaration of independence instead? Either way, governments have various expectations from them, the first and foremost being the safety and security of their people. If you ask everyday americans, they care about money after that. If only most americans agreed with you, we'd have solved the homeless crisis, poverty and universal healthcare already. > I believe that entrenching "states" as entities in the way the constitution does was a bad idea. Sure, we need different levels of government. But there's no reason to privilege states in the way we do, especially since their boundaries and accessions are at best arbitrary and at worst the result of political machinations. Democracy is about what people want, and I don't think our existing federal system is the best way to get at that. The people in texas to use this thread's example, don't agree with you. They very much like their state and its state-identity. So do most everyday people from most other states. Some big states could probably use being split apart to better represent their people for sure, but even that hasn't gained enough popular support in places like Texas and California. To repeat my point earlier, Americans care about money. In california for example, it is literally the 4th largest economy in the world, but if you split apart, not so much. The thing you don't see I think is that there is power in numbers. Economic power as well as the power to get things done. Utah for example is full of Mormons, if it was split up, they will be less united and less able to get their mormon stuff encoded in the law. You're right that democracy is about what the people want, it isn't about what you and I as individuals want but what everyday people want. Without state governments and their rights, people lose lots of laws they like. To use texas again, they really like open-carry gun laws, can you still carry your ak-47 to bucky's in texas, if the federal government is deciding such laws (even more good reason for it due to all the mass shootings)? The people of taxis by a large pluralistic majority like the open carry laws, quite the opposite from california or new england. To keep my reply not too long as well, let me stop here by saying that I think large metro areas should probably get their own state-like representation, and that a constitutional convention is not only called for, but the next amendment to the constitution to be requiring a convention every 10 years.
- BrenBarn 10mo ago
  > > the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare > That's not even true. Are you talking about the declaration of independence instead? It's in the preamble to the constitution. > The thing you don't see I think is that there is power in numbers. Yes, that's exactly it. The power should be in numbers not in the arrangement of those numbers across arbitrarily defined geographical regions. > Utah for example is full of Mormons, if it was split up, they will be less united and less able to get their mormon stuff encoded in the law. But is it good that they are able to get their stuff encoded in law? What if there is some other group that is already split up and can't get their stuff encoded into law because they happen to not be aligned with state boundaries? My point is that things should happen to the extent that individual humans want them, not to the extent that political fictions like states or counties "want" them.

notepad0x90 10mo ago

There is how things should be and how they are. These are not separate things because how you enact the changes you want is either through existing ways of doing things, or war. I don't think I can discuss about theoretical forms of government here and now, but in the US you have think in practical terms. That means what Americans expect, want and can tolerate. I'm a huge advocate of a constitutional convention to update the constitution for example. But concepts like a "state", in practical terms, can't be changed without a civil war. Even a state breaking up into smaller pieces on its own means it gets more representation than others now. > So no, I don't care that "states" is in the name of the country, nor do I care that the constitution says stuff about states, nor do I care about keeping the union together. Theoretically, I don't care either, in reality, I don't want to go through war, nor do I want millions to die to get any better form of government in place. Anything practical will require generations of campaigning, and actually convincing people that it is more important than more pressing matters. And frankly, it's too divergent of a topic from the original thread. > the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare That's not even true. Are you talking about the declaration of independence instead? Either way, governments have various expectations from them, the first and foremost being the safety and security of their people. If you ask everyday americans, they care about money after that. If only most americans agreed with you, we'd have solved the homeless crisis, poverty and universal healthcare already. > I believe that entrenching "states" as entities in the way the constitution does was a bad idea. Sure, we need different levels of government. But there's no reason to privilege states in the way we do, especially since their boundaries and accessions are at best arbitrary and at worst the result of political machinations. Democracy is about what people want, and I don't think our existing federal system is the best way to get at that. The people in texas to use this thread's example, don't agree with you. They very much like their state and its state-identity. So do most everyday people from most other states. Some big states could probably use being split apart to better represent their people for sure, but even that hasn't gained enough popular support in places like Texas and California. To repeat my point earlier, Americans care about money. In california for example, it is literally the 4th largest economy in the world, but if you split apart, not so much. The thing you don't see I think is that there is power in numbers. Economic power as well as the power to get things done. Utah for example is full of Mormons, if it was split up, they will be less united and less able to get their mormon stuff encoded in the law. You're right that democracy is about what the people want, it isn't about what you and I as individuals want but what everyday people want. Without state governments and their rights, people lose lots of laws they like. To use texas again, they really like open-carry gun laws, can you still carry your ak-47 to bucky's in texas, if the federal government is deciding such laws (even more good reason for it due to all the mass shootings)? The people of taxis by a large pluralistic majority like the open carry laws, quite the opposite from california or new england. To keep my reply not too long as well, let me stop here by saying that I think large metro areas should probably get their own state-like representation, and that a constitutional convention is not only called for, but the next amendment to the constitution to be requiring a convention every 10 years.

BrenBarn 10mo ago
> > the purpose of government is to promote the general welfare > That's not even true. Are you talking about the declaration of independence instead? It's in the preamble to the constitution. > The thing you don't see I think is that there is power in numbers. Yes, that's exactly it. The power should be in numbers not in the arrangement of those numbers across arbitrarily defined geographical regions. > Utah for example is full of Mormons, if it was split up, they will be less united and less able to get their mormon stuff encoded in the law. But is it good that they are able to get their stuff encoded in law? What if there is some other group that is already split up and can't get their stuff encoded into law because they happen to not be aligned with state boundaries? My point is that things should happen to the extent that individual humans want them, not to the extent that political fictions like states or counties "want" them.