Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Your assumption is that the urban areas ideas are "the best for the state".
That is the problem "the rest of us" have with the urban mindset... We live in different areas, what is best for one is not best for other areas. Many rules, laws, ideas, concepts that are great for urban areas, are ridiculous, restrictive, nonsense for rural areas. (and the opposite is true)
The disgust many of us out here in the rural areas have for the "urban mindset" is that for some reason, the urbanites think the rest of the world should live the way they do, their ideas, laws and regulations are best for all and should be forced on everyone else. Well, that is just bull.... compost.
2) No.... the rural areas, land wise, are NOT meaningless.
That's where the food comes from, the ethanol for your hybrids and fuel efficient vehicles, the oxygen from the trees and plants... That is NOT meaningless. That takes LAND, that takes people who work the land, manage the wildlife, the forests, the pastures.
Who takes care of that? All those millions in the cities?
Our way of life, our needs, our concerns, are largely based on the realities of rural life and they are FAR from meaningless.
What your average urban voter thinks is "best for the state" is often absolutely ridiculous, harmful, inefficient, and destructive in many rural areas. (I highly doubt you'd think it's OK for someone in a downtown apartment to have a chicken coop in their parking space, go out and grab a rooster and chop his head off before preparing him for dinner.) If the rural way of life isn't best for the city, and you wouldn't want our ideas making laws in your townhome community.... what makes urban ideals best for "the state"? What gives you the right to do that to us?
The needs and actions of day to day life out here are sometimes vastly different from what the urban people face and "land wise" has a lot to do with it.
3) This country is NOT a democracy where majority rules. If that were the case, whatever concept or value you have that doesn't align with the majority, would be invalid, you'd have no right or protection to hold those views. That would be wrong. This country is designed to protect the rights of all legal citizens, even if they are in the minority. Even if they are in those "meaningless" rural areas.
The large number of people living in urban areas..... your rights are no more important than ours.
Just because you think something is "best for the state" certainly does not mean it IS best for the state, it just means it's best for you, or possibly for the urban areas.... not for all.
You may view a homeowners right to walk around with a rifle over their shoulder or pistol on their hip as "backwards" but out in those rural areas where we raise livestock, grow food, and face coyotes, snakes, wild dogs on a regular basis, carrying a tool to protect our way of life, is simply a way of life. ....and groceries don't grow on the trader joes display racks."
You may view laws allowing run down old busses and unlicensed 60 year old equipment traveling the highway as being "backwards" but out here it's called "life". It is necessary for growing the food in your grocery stores, bringing the produce to the processing center, moving from field to field. (and yes... these are just examples. I'm sure you have other meanings...)
Your home owners association rules may be good for your urban townhome complex, but they'd be an absolute nightmare out here and would violate our rights, destroy livelihoods, bankrupt necessary businesses, and cause problems for the entire state.
4) Quite frankly... many of us who live out here in the "meaningless" rural areas are sick and tired of the intolerant, inconsiderate attitudes of the folks crammed into the cities by the millions who think their way is the only way, best for everyone, and want to dictate rights, laws, and way of life for everyone else.
We are sick of the idea that simply because millions of people want to live like sardines in big cities, they feel their opinion matters more, their views are best for all, their ideals outweigh all the "meaningless" peasants out in fly over country... That their opinions are superior to the ignorant "backwards" people "out there" beyond the city limits.
In fact..... this last election shows that.
I mean really.... Donald Trump!? What a horrible choice for president! Yet the major overwhelming majority of people in the "meaningless" lands of rural life... bit their tongue, swallowed their pride, grimaced and reluctantly chose to go with him.... BECAUSE THEY WERE SICK of the same old mentality of the "city dwellers" who want to force everything they prefer on all of us.
VERY FEW people I know who voted for him actually wanted HIM. They just wanted something different and in the midst of all the crazy, ridiculous things he said.... he also said some things we've all been saying for years. ....And Hillary said none of it, she just said the same old things.
So people bit their tongue and chose the candidate that they though might would actually consider some of the concerns and needs of rural America. Because we knew Hillary would view "rural" America as meaningless.... good for nothing except votes and MAYBE.... maybe there was a chance that wild unruly trump would actually consider some things real Americans are dealing with, and not let "political correctness" over ride common sense.
Nice rant. A little short of specifics, though. Anyway, your basic premise is flat wrong, and you are misconstruing and taking my comments out of context. I never said rural people or rural NC is meaningless. You either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented what I said.
I do stand by my assertion that many republican members of the General Assembly from rural areas are putting forth an agenda that is against the best interests of the entire state. And urban republicans are blindly abetting them, unfortunately.
3) This country is NOT a democracy where majority rules. If that were the case, whatever concept or value you have that doesn't align with the majority, would be invalid, you'd have no right or protection to hold those views. That would be wrong. This country is designed to protect the rights of all legal citizens, even if they are in the minority. Even if they are in those "meaningless" rural areas.
It's true that the country isn't a real democracy. One party controls the Presidency, House, and Senate with a minority of votes. It has permanent control of many state legislatures thanks to gerrymandering, regardless of what voters want. That's tyranny. There is no magical system in between democracy and tyranny that works better. People who feel they have some advantage in a tyrannical system will invent excuses to defend it, but their logic is always paper thin (even if their posts are 10 pages long).
While you may defend this system because you perceive it tilts policy in your favor (I suspect it really doesn't... you're as much of a termite according to the owners of this country as the rest of us), understand that there's no noble reason we have it.
The Senate is basically a House of Lords. It was designed to keep rich white landowners in charge (by the way, tyranny of the majority is a code... the only minority the system 'protects' is disproportionately rich white landowners, from the people they have exploited for their wealth). The whole concept of the Senate is broken, and I suspect the powers of this branch will be slimmed down 100-200 years in the future when one side figures out it can just cut its states into a dozen pieces to get more senators... breaking the system.
The House is tyranny of the minority. Gerrymandering is nothing more than tyranny of an unelected minority. It makes the US the laughing stock of the western world that we have it. If you want to represent the people, we should use something like proportional representation... under that sort of system winners and losers would have seats at the table, in proportion to how many votes they got.
The electoral college was designed to give slave states extra power.
-If we had a straight popular vote for president (which some founders favored), the free states would've had a lot more power than the slave states, because more of their citizens could vote.
-By having electors apportioned by a state's population--the nonvoting slave populations in the slave states could add to their electoral vote and thus their representation nationally. (As an example, Pennsylvania had more free men, but Virginia had more electoral votes because 3/5ths of its slaves were counted in its population for electors).
-All other reasons you may have heard are apocryphal and revisionist, and were invented in more recent times by people who perceive they have some advantage under this system.
The US Constitution had many compromises in it to keep the country together, because at the time the fear was that if the states split up, other countries could easily come in and take over. Human rights and fair representation in government were tossed aside for the sake of preserving the union. As for the stuff about democracy being bad... far from it. There are many countries on earth that are far more democratically representative than the US and doing much better for it. However you think the economy or society should be structured, all human institutions fill up with corrupt people and decay over time. ALL OF THEM. The only way to ensure institutions remain accountable is to have democracy.
It's true that the country isn't a real democracy. One party controls the Presidency, House, and Senate with a minority of votes. It has permanent control of many state legislatures thanks to gerrymandering, regardless of what voters want. That's tyranny. There is no magical system in between democracy and tyranny that works better. People who feel they have some advantage in a tyrannical system will invent excuses to defend it, but their logic is always paper thin (even if their posts are 10 pages long).
While you may defend this system because you perceive it tilts policy in your favor (I suspect it really doesn't... you're as much of a termite according to the owners of this country as the rest of us), understand that there's no noble reason we have it.
The Senate is basically a House of Lords. It was designed to keep rich white landowners in charge (by the way, tyranny of the majority is a code... the only minority the system 'protects' is disproportionately rich white landowners, from the people they have exploited for their wealth). The whole concept of the Senate is broken, and I suspect the powers of this branch will be slimmed down 100-200 years in the future when one side figures out it can just cut its states into a dozen pieces to get more senators... breaking the system.
The House is tyranny of the minority. Gerrymandering is nothing more than tyranny of an unelected minority. It makes the US the laughing stock of the western world that we have it. If you want to represent the people, we should use something like proportional representation... under that sort of system winners and losers would have seats at the table, in proportion to how many votes they got.
The electoral college was designed to give slave states extra power.
-If we had a straight popular vote for president (which some founders favored), the free states would've had a lot more power than the slave states, because more of their citizens could vote.
-By having electors apportioned by a state's population--the nonvoting slave populations in the slave states could add to their electoral vote and thus their representation nationally. (As an example, Pennsylvania had more free men, but Virginia had more electoral votes because 3/5ths of its slaves were counted in its population for electors).
-All other reasons you may have heard are apocryphal and revisionist, and were invented in more recent times by people who perceive they have some advantage under this system.
The US Constitution had many compromises in it to keep the country together, because at the time the fear was that if the states split up, other countries could easily come in and take over. Human rights and fair representation in government were tossed aside for the sake of preserving the union. As for the stuff about democracy being bad... far from it. There are many countries on earth that are far more democratically representative than the US and doing much better for it. However you think the economy or society should be structured, all human institutions fill up with corrupt people and decay over time. ALL OF THEM. The only way to ensure institutions remain accountable is to have democracy.
Very bold claims, give us some links from trusted academic sources if you will please. I like what you said, just want to hear it from some academics.
BC1960 thinks gender-bending and same-sex sodomy are good for NC, so take anything he/she/it says with a huge grain of salt.
And yet, you're the one with the worthless post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
