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.
Interesting stuff, but wouldn't we have more Baltic states, Western Africas and more war and dysfunction? More evil dictators and less cooperation? Conversely, look at Brazil... that's alot of harmony in a huge space. Of course I doubt it's sustainable for long.
I assume when you say the Baltics that you mean the Balkans? IE, Yugoslavia and things like the Bosnian war? And the ongoing issues in Kosovo? Thus, would my system lead to more wars and territorial disputes and the demand for certain areas to secede? Probably.
But what are the alternatives? Would you rather that Yugoslavia still existed? Would you rather the majority Serbia ruled the entire region? Would you rather the destruction of freedom and culture to prevent disputes and war?
The issue of dictators is kind of silly. There is generally only one way to have dictatorship, a military coup. One of the duties of our government under the constitution is to guarantee each state a Republican form of government. A Republican form of government means that each state must have a constitution and they must adhere to it. I doubt any state would voluntarily word its constitution to allow for the rise of a dictatorship.
Obviously you are going to get more cooperation under a single government, because the ability to not cooperate isn't available. But that doesn't mean that anyone is actually better off.
As for Brazil, I'm not exactly sure how harmonious that place is. I know its major cities have terrible crime rates. The murder rate is going through the roof in recent years(especially among youths/gangs). The majority of a certain class of people are in terrible poverty(they have actual ghettos there, like tent cities and one-room shacks). And the natives are pissed off. I don't know what the politics are like there, so I can't comment on the divisiveness of Brazilian society and politics.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-19-2011 at 04:56 PM..
You mean that you want people to agree with you and never tell the truth. Ok, gotcha!
No, I want to see less pointless, mindless, baseless partisan rhetoric.
I want to see more common sense and less ideology. I have little use for ideology, right or left. I want sensible, logical solutions to the country's problems and not bickering between groups of people that simply cannot see the world without their partisan blinders on.
Sometimes the conservatives are right. Sometimes the liberals are right. Anyone that says otherwise isn't worth listening to.
I think people like you are the problem, and are more interested in getting your way than coming up with any real solutions.
I assume when you say the Baltics that you mean the Balkans? IE, Yugoslavia and things like the Bosnian war? And the ongoing issues in Kosovo? Thus, would my system lead to more wars and territorial disputes and the demand for certain areas to secede? Probably.
But what are the alternatives? Would you rather that Yugoslavia still existed? Would you rather the majority Serbia ruled the entire region? Would you rather the destruction of freedom and culture to prevent disputes and war?
The issue of dictators is kind of silly. There is generally only one way to have dictatorship, a military coup. One of the duties of our government under the constitution is to guarantee each state a Republican form of government. A Republican form of government means that each state must have a constitution and they must adhere to it. I doubt any state would voluntarily word its constitution to allow for the rise of a dictatorship.
Obviously you are going to get more cooperation under a single government, because the ability to not cooperate isn't available. But that doesn't mean that anyone is actually better off.
As for Brazil, I'm not exactly sure how harmonious that place is. I know its major cities have terrible crime rates. The murder rate is going through the roof in recent years(especially among youths/gangs). The majority of a certain class of people are in terrible poverty(they have actual ghettos there, like tent cities and one-room shacks). And the natives are pissed off. I don't know what the politics are like there, so I can't comment on the divisiveness of Brazilian society and politics.
Ah yes, Balkans is what I meant. You ask: "Would you rather the destruction of freedom and culture to prevent disputes and war?" That's a real tough question but for the modern, globalized world, I think the self-evident answer is yes. We (humans) seem to be willing to discard culture for technology and prosperity. Makes the world a far less interesting place granted.
I wouldn't overstate the murder rates and crime in Brazil... it is largely limited to the drug trade, killing eachother over turf (innocent bystanders not withstanding). The ghettos/tent cities (favelas) aren't that bad, there are plenty of middle-class people living in them happily with the ability for their children to get ahead. Brazilians have far less of the "keeping up with the Jones" mentality that makes so many Americans miserable.
Did you even know of the parts of the confederate constitution were changed from the original?
Why don't you spell it out for me.
Quote:
Do you think the framers would have been opposed to something like a line-item veto?
I support line item veto. It doesn't necessitate a confederacy however, a separate issue.
Quote:
Do you think the founders would have been opposed to requiring all acts of Congress to be limited to just one topic, to prevent a persons vote from being bought off by promising them billions in federal money to be spent in their district, Congressmen try to insert all kinds of crap into all the bills in this way, and such a change would have prevented it(and we still need it).
Do you expect anything less with corporate money flowing into elections? What do you think of Citizens United decision for that matter? Is it bound to help or worsen that effect? Trust me, I would have LOVED to see the eleventh amendment (Corporate Monopolies) that Jefferson and Madison wanted to see get through, and guess why it failed? Yeah... because each state was able to achieve that at the time, so federal authority was unnecessary.
Quote:
Do you also believe the framers would have been opposed to requiring that every act of Congress be required to list what article or clause of the constitution grants them the power?
There was a purpose to establishing the Supreme Court.
Quote:
Do you believe the founders would have liked the idea that almost all tax revenue would come from tariffs on a few states, and that the tax revenue would be overwhelmingly spent on special programs and public works in states which paid almost nothing in taxes? Didn't the founders intend to make sure that each state should be taxed equally?
Taxation was never meant to be at state level but that tax rates were to be uniform across all states. The "state power" folks tend to somehow miss the point that the constitution is more about the people than about the states.
Quote:
I highly doubt there would be very many framers of the constitution that would have opposed to anything in the confederate constitution.
The proof is in the pudding. Articles of Confederation was replaced with the US Constitution.
Quote:
As Milton Friedman said about the best way to evaluate a government is by how people vote with their feet.
Do you vote according to Friedman's whims, or your own?
You mean the state power folks? Yeah, they had real issue with the US constitution because it was put in place to give more power to the federal government. Never mind that they failed, miserably and losing more than they would have otherwise.
It's only a matter of perspective even the supporters of our constitution envisioned a weak central government Just a little less weak than the confederation. At the end of the day they would never have condoned the federal government we've been stuck with since FDR.
Quote:
And "state power" folks are different?
We are completely different from the blue staters in that we do want our founders original interpretation of the constitution and a weak central government.
No, I want to see less pointless, mindless, baseless partisan rhetoric.
I want to see more common sense and less ideology. I have little use for ideology, right or left. I want sensible, logical solutions to the country's problems and not bickering between groups of people that simply cannot see the world without their partisan blinders on.
Sometimes the conservatives are right. Sometimes the liberals are right. Anyone that says otherwise isn't worth listening to.
I think people like you are the problem, and are more interested in getting your way than coming up with any real solutions.
That's the way I feel, too. Liberals think I'm too conservative, and conservatives think I'm too liberal.
Tried that once, it didn't work. We need a strong centralized government to regulate interstate commerce,
As several years ago when Congress spent 4 days debating interstate monkey transportation?
Since as you know, transporting monkeys from state to state is a very pressing issue...
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.
