3 ms·

I'll go you one further, Mr. Draper: California should be split up into six countries. The plain fact is that the notion of "consent of the governed" is prepos

I'll go you one further, Mr. Draper: California should be split up into six countries. The plain fact is that the notion of "consent of the governed" is preposterous in any culturally diverse environment of more than a few million people. Reasonable people wish to live differently, with different forms and amounts of government, religion, social norms, etc. So be it.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration, and so while what you say makes sense, it would change nothing in the long run unless it was accompanied by stricter immigration restrictions. Otherwise these 6 new countries would soon be just as diverse as California is now.
- carsongross 13y ago
  Each new country, of course, would be able to set their immigration restrictions and loosely or as tightly as they wished. And, hey, this might actually reflect the preferences of their citizens rather than the preferences of some remote elites. It's crazy talk, I know.
  - smtddr 13y ago
    Yes, crazy and wrong. Let me tell you how this is going to go. A bunch of wealthy people, of limited diversity, will make their own country and exploit all the poorer ones. I would have no problem with your plan if you can assure me that the wealthier country doesn't bully, pollute, wage wars or otherwise compromise the people or natural resources the poorer countries nearby.
    - carsongross 13y ago
      Nah, sane and correct. Massive super-states: bulwarks of peace, clean living and respect for both the individual and their local cultural groups... Sure, man. Whatever. At least give it a chance in your brain: I know it doesn't fit the classic left/right divide, but would a continent of Switzerlands of varying cultures be that bad? Worse than todays USG?
      - smtddr 13y ago
        I can assure you that the rich will group themselves away from the poor. So, I repeat: If you can assure me the wealthy won't take advantage of the poor, then I'm fine. But you can't assure me that. It's going to end up like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs >>The series focuses on the antics of a family who live in a poor valley community and, as a result of pollution and radiation exposure, are all disabled or deformed. The pollution is the direct result of the lavish lifestyle of the rich community known as "The Hills", whose residents exploit and harm the valley residents with absolutely no regard for their safety or well-being. Social commentary Many reviewers and fans see the series as a commentary on social stratification. While the residents of the Hills live in wealth and economically dominate those in the Valley, there is no rallying cry for wealth redistribution or fairer working conditions.
    - bilbo0s 13y ago
      If it makes you feel any better... NONE of these nations would be bullies... because they would be unable to defend themselves. They would rely on some bigger, stronger ally to guarantee that other nations would not trample their sovereignty or, most importantly, their property rights. I DO think that a bigger, stronger nation would dominate in the area that would be formerly known as California... I just don't think that stronger nation would be one of the new nations formed. It would probably be the US actually. So the rich of the new nations would not dominate the poor of the new nations... It's far more likely that the US would dominate both.
    - tolmasky 13y ago
      Wait are you describing the US and it's current relationship to others countries?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    I guess that makes sense. What is novel and slightly confusing about your viewpoint is that it involves the interaction between the size of a country, and the diversity of a country. Only large, diverse countries are a problem for you. But there is still the issue of elites (remote or otherwise) imposing diversity on their citizens against their wishes. If this hadn't happened in the US, California wouldn't be so diverse in the first place. You claim this is not such a problem with small countries, but exactly the same thing is happening in Europe.
  - millstone 13y ago
    Preferences of citizens instead of remote elites! What springs to my mind is the events of 1953, where a mere 9 remote elites ran roughshod over the preferences of millions of citizens. Also known as Brown v. Board of Education. Federalism and the incorporation doctrine have been a powerful force for freedom and justice in the USA. Please let's not abandon it.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  >The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration I hope you're including immigration from the Midwest, the South, the tons of immigration from the East Coast etc. in the immigration you want to restrict. California used to be part of Mexico, so nothing from that border could be making California any more diverse.
  - mc32 13y ago
    For perspective, California was part of Mexico for all of 10 years, then went thru revolts and independence (republic) then US state. It was part of Spain for many years before that. Just like Louisiana was French before it was a territory and then state.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > For perspective, California was part of Mexico for all of 10 years 1821-1846 is 25 years.
      - mc32 13y ago
        Nominally, yes. Most of the latter part Mexico had little to no dominion (revolts, independence, etc.).
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  "The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration" Time was, California only had indigenous peoples.
- informatimago 13y ago
  Obviously, only programmers would be allowed to immigrate into SiliconValleyCountry, and only actors would be allowed into HollywoodLand.
baddox 13y ago
> The plain fact is that the notion of "consent of the governed" is preposterous in any culturally diverse environment of more than a few million people. Why place the arbitrary line around a few million? It never made much sense to me to apply it to anything more than an individual.
- carsongross 13y ago
  Simply because the line has to be drawn somewhere, and a few million looks right when you squint at it. It might be higher for culturally homogenous societies, such as Japan or Norway. It might be lower for smaller groups. The unfortunate reality is that, as social animals, other peoples behavior has a dramatic effect on us. Since I have met many people of good will who wish to live in dramatically different social configurations, my best solution is lots of small countries with varying social configurations.
  - baddox 13y ago
    If you're referring to "the governed" a group rather than an individual (which makes little sense to me, since consent is an individual phenomenon), I don't see why any particular numbers looks good if you squint at it. It seems logical that the smaller the group, the better, but then we get right back to the individual.
    - carsongross 13y ago
      Yeah, we are gonna keep talking past each other, but here's my last shot... Just trust me on this: there are people, good people, who don't think like you do. I think more like you than probably 95% of the people out there, and I might even want to live in the country that you and people with a like mind establish. But I'd have to see how it turned out, and I'd like to have the option to bail if it ends up not being my cup of tea. The social environment that they live in matters intensely to a large subset of humans. That's OK, even if you aren't one of them. We have enough room on this huge continent for their kind and your kind, and even my kind.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say balkanization is not the solution to the problem.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration, and so while what you say makes sense, it would change nothing in the long run unless it was accompanied by stricter immigration restrictions. Otherwise these 6 new countries would soon be just as diverse as California is now.

carsongross 13y ago
Each new country, of course, would be able to set their immigration restrictions and loosely or as tightly as they wished. And, hey, this might actually reflect the preferences of their citizens rather than the preferences of some remote elites. It's crazy talk, I know.
- smtddr 13y ago
  Yes, crazy and wrong. Let me tell you how this is going to go. A bunch of wealthy people, of limited diversity, will make their own country and exploit all the poorer ones. I would have no problem with your plan if you can assure me that the wealthier country doesn't bully, pollute, wage wars or otherwise compromise the people or natural resources the poorer countries nearby.
  - carsongross 13y ago
    Nah, sane and correct. Massive super-states: bulwarks of peace, clean living and respect for both the individual and their local cultural groups... Sure, man. Whatever. At least give it a chance in your brain: I know it doesn't fit the classic left/right divide, but would a continent of Switzerlands of varying cultures be that bad? Worse than todays USG?
    - smtddr 13y ago
      I can assure you that the rich will group themselves away from the poor. So, I repeat: If you can assure me the wealthy won't take advantage of the poor, then I'm fine. But you can't assure me that. It's going to end up like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oblongs >>The series focuses on the antics of a family who live in a poor valley community and, as a result of pollution and radiation exposure, are all disabled or deformed. The pollution is the direct result of the lavish lifestyle of the rich community known as "The Hills", whose residents exploit and harm the valley residents with absolutely no regard for their safety or well-being. Social commentary Many reviewers and fans see the series as a commentary on social stratification. While the residents of the Hills live in wealth and economically dominate those in the Valley, there is no rallying cry for wealth redistribution or fairer working conditions.
  - bilbo0s 13y ago
    If it makes you feel any better... NONE of these nations would be bullies... because they would be unable to defend themselves. They would rely on some bigger, stronger ally to guarantee that other nations would not trample their sovereignty or, most importantly, their property rights. I DO think that a bigger, stronger nation would dominate in the area that would be formerly known as California... I just don't think that stronger nation would be one of the new nations formed. It would probably be the US actually. So the rich of the new nations would not dominate the poor of the new nations... It's far more likely that the US would dominate both.
  - tolmasky 13y ago
    Wait are you describing the US and it's current relationship to others countries?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  I guess that makes sense. What is novel and slightly confusing about your viewpoint is that it involves the interaction between the size of a country, and the diversity of a country. Only large, diverse countries are a problem for you. But there is still the issue of elites (remote or otherwise) imposing diversity on their citizens against their wishes. If this hadn't happened in the US, California wouldn't be so diverse in the first place. You claim this is not such a problem with small countries, but exactly the same thing is happening in Europe.
- millstone 13y ago
  Preferences of citizens instead of remote elites! What springs to my mind is the events of 1953, where a mere 9 remote elites ran roughshod over the preferences of millions of citizens. Also known as Brown v. Board of Education. Federalism and the incorporation doctrine have been a powerful force for freedom and justice in the USA. Please let's not abandon it.
pessimizer 13y ago
>The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration I hope you're including immigration from the Midwest, the South, the tons of immigration from the East Coast etc. in the immigration you want to restrict. California used to be part of Mexico, so nothing from that border could be making California any more diverse.
- mc32 13y ago
  For perspective, California was part of Mexico for all of 10 years, then went thru revolts and independence (republic) then US state. It was part of Spain for many years before that. Just like Louisiana was French before it was a territory and then state.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > For perspective, California was part of Mexico for all of 10 years 1821-1846 is 25 years.
    - mc32 13y ago
      Nominally, yes. Most of the latter part Mexico had little to no dominion (revolts, independence, etc.).
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
"The only reason California is so diverse is because of immigration" Time was, California only had indigenous peoples.
informatimago 13y ago
Obviously, only programmers would be allowed to immigrate into SiliconValleyCountry, and only actors would be allowed into HollywoodLand.

baddox 13y ago

> The plain fact is that the notion of "consent of the governed" is preposterous in any culturally diverse environment of more than a few million people. Why place the arbitrary line around a few million? It never made much sense to me to apply it to anything more than an individual.

carsongross 13y ago
Simply because the line has to be drawn somewhere, and a few million looks right when you squint at it. It might be higher for culturally homogenous societies, such as Japan or Norway. It might be lower for smaller groups. The unfortunate reality is that, as social animals, other peoples behavior has a dramatic effect on us. Since I have met many people of good will who wish to live in dramatically different social configurations, my best solution is lots of small countries with varying social configurations.
- baddox 13y ago
  If you're referring to "the governed" a group rather than an individual (which makes little sense to me, since consent is an individual phenomenon), I don't see why any particular numbers looks good if you squint at it. It seems logical that the smaller the group, the better, but then we get right back to the individual.
  - carsongross 13y ago
    Yeah, we are gonna keep talking past each other, but here's my last shot... Just trust me on this: there are people, good people, who don't think like you do. I think more like you than probably 95% of the people out there, and I might even want to live in the country that you and people with a like mind establish. But I'd have to see how it turned out, and I'd like to have the option to bail if it ends up not being my cup of tea. The social environment that they live in matters intensely to a large subset of humans. That's OK, even if you aren't one of them. We have enough room on this huge continent for their kind and your kind, and even my kind.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say balkanization is not the solution to the problem.