Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

 

2010-09-12 20:23:22
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:


We already are split up into 50 states. A dramatic curtailment of Federal power, in favor of a return to the original Constitutional framework of strong State governments supported by a Federal government to represent us in national or international matters, might work.

Will never happen though. 
The Senate, the Supreme Court, and the Executive branch are too invested in a strong Federal system with weak States.

We already fought a Civil War to keep the United States united.
Was bad enough with 1800's weapons - imagine the devastation if we had our current military split in half and fighting itself.
Well, I'm referring to a peaceful secession...  but this would never happen anyway.

Constitutionalism looks nice on paper, but in many respects, it's not practical in the modern world.
So you want secession? Weren't you arguing a few months back against states rights based on your fear of a return of Jim Crowe laws?

We don't need a break up of the US, we need the states to reassert their sovereign powers and for the federal government to have its power curtailed back to pre-FDR days.
I'd rather have the current system than have what you're proposing.

The reason I dislike constitutionalism to that extent is that it didn't work very well in the past.  Granted, secession didn't work out either.
2010-09-12 20:30:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, I'm referring to a peaceful secession...  but this would never happen anyway.

Constitutionalism looks nice on paper, but in many respects, it's not practical in the modern world.
So you want secession? Weren't you arguing a few months back against states rights based on your fear of a return of Jim Crowe laws?

We don't need a break up of the US, we need the states to reassert their sovereign powers and for the federal government to have its power curtailed back to pre-FDR days.
I'd rather have the current system than have what you're proposing.

The reason I dislike constitutionalism to that extent is that it didn't work very well in the past.  Granted, secession didn't work out either.
The further down you push power, the more power the individual has.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-09-12 20:38:04
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


So you want secession? Weren't you arguing a few months back against states rights based on your fear of a return of Jim Crowe laws?

We don't need a break up of the US, we need the states to reassert their sovereign powers and for the federal government to have its power curtailed back to pre-FDR days.
I'd rather have the current system than have what you're proposing.

The reason I dislike constitutionalism to that extent is that it didn't work very well in the past.  Granted, secession didn't work out either.
The further down you push power, the more power the individual has.
Yes, but following that logic, we would be better off with 50 different countries.
2010-09-12 20:42:13
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


I'd rather have the current system than have what you're proposing.

The reason I dislike constitutionalism to that extent is that it didn't work very well in the past.  Granted, secession didn't work out either.
The further down you push power, the more power the individual has.
Yes, but following that logic, we would be better off with 50 different countries.
How about a million? Having a unified country lowers the collective cost of defense, ensures peace between the various states and allows ease of commerce under a single currency. I'm just saying that things like the Department of Education and other federal offices should be abolished in order to re-empower the lower levels of government.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-09-12 20:44:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

How about a million? Having a unified country lowers the collective cost of defense, ensures peace between the various states and allows ease of commerce under a single currency.
How do you feel about the EU?
2010-09-12 20:45:43
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

How about a million? Having a unified country lowers the collective cost of defense, ensures peace between the various states and allows ease of commerce under a single currency.
How do you feel about the EU?
I think that as currently constructed it won't last. Power will inevitably concentrate in the central government at the expense of the individual states. It does have a nice Articles of Confederation feel to it right now though. I approve of the current status. I abhor what the end result will be.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-12 20:47:12)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-09-12 20:46:22
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6865|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

How about a million? Having a unified country lowers the collective cost of defense, ensures peace between the various states and allows ease of commerce under a single currency.
How do you feel about the EU?
you mean, "the new holy roman empire"?
2010-09-12 20:52:25
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Reciprocity wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

How about a million? Having a unified country lowers the collective cost of defense, ensures peace between the various states and allows ease of commerce under a single currency.
How do you feel about the EU?
you mean, "the new holy roman empire"?
lol... 

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

How about a million? Having a unified country lowers the collective cost of defense, ensures peace between the various states and allows ease of commerce under a single currency.
How do you feel about the EU?
I think that as currently constructed it won't last. Power will inevitably concentrate in the central government at the expense of the individual states. It does have a nice Articles of Confederation feel to it right now though. I approve of the current status. I abhor what the end result will be.
See, I think the EU even in its current state was a colossal mistake.  I think it erodes national sovereignty, and maintaining the stability of one currency across various economies that vary widely in debt levels and standard of living is futile in the long run.

I think there's a critical mass level that a state reaches in terms of population.  Generally speaking, this number seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40 million people.  I think Canada is about the largest a country can get in terms of population without a major dropoff in the ability to efficiently govern under one main system.

For example, I think California should be its own country.  It's extremely large to be a subnational unit.
2010-09-12 20:55:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

See, I think the EU even in its current state was a colossal mistake.  I think it erodes national sovereignty, and maintaining the stability of one currency across various economies that vary widely in debt levels and standard of living is futile in the long run.

I think there's a critical mass level that a state reaches in terms of population.  Generally speaking, this number seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40 million people.  I think Canada is about the largest a country can get in terms of population without a major dropoff in the ability to efficiently govern under one main system.

For example, I think California should be its own country.  It's extremely large to be a subnational unit.
Having a single currency forces fiscal responsibility. When a formerly sovereign state learns that it can no longer debase its currency to get out of debt you end up with austerity measures that force a correction in the internal market. Adopting the Euro and subsequently coming close to near-default is probably the best thing that could've ever happened to a nation like Greece. Their style of living was completely unsustainable. Hitting the wall with a strong currency prevented them from entering the long spiral downward.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-09-12 21:06:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

See, I think the EU even in its current state was a colossal mistake.  I think it erodes national sovereignty, and maintaining the stability of one currency across various economies that vary widely in debt levels and standard of living is futile in the long run.

I think there's a critical mass level that a state reaches in terms of population.  Generally speaking, this number seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40 million people.  I think Canada is about the largest a country can get in terms of population without a major dropoff in the ability to efficiently govern under one main system.

For example, I think California should be its own country.  It's extremely large to be a subnational unit.
Having a single currency forces fiscal responsibility. When a formerly sovereign state learns that it can no longer debase its currency to get out of debt you end up with austerity measures that force a correction in the internal market. Adopting the Euro and subsequently coming close to near-default is probably the best thing that could've ever happened to a nation like Greece. Their style of living was completely unsustainable. Hitting the wall with a strong currency prevented them from entering the long spiral downward.
Well, I agree that it was good for Greece, but it really sucks for more financially responsible countries that are tied to that currency as well -- like Germany.  They're having to prop up Greece for basically nothing in return.
2010-09-13 06:21:40
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I agree that it was good for Greece, but it really sucks for more financially responsible countries that are tied to that currency as well -- like Germany.  They're having to prop up Greece for basically nothing in return.
Serves em right for WW2, they never really paid for that.
Fuck Israel
2010-09-13 06:30:53
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

See, I think the EU even in its current state was a colossal mistake.  I think it erodes national sovereignty, and maintaining the stability of one currency across various economies that vary widely in debt levels and standard of living is futile in the long run.

I think there's a critical mass level that a state reaches in terms of population.  Generally speaking, this number seems to be somewhere between 30 and 40 million people.  I think Canada is about the largest a country can get in terms of population without a major dropoff in the ability to efficiently govern under one main system.

For example, I think California should be its own country.  It's extremely large to be a subnational unit.
Having a single currency forces fiscal responsibility. When a formerly sovereign state learns that it can no longer debase its currency to get out of debt you end up with austerity measures that force a correction in the internal market. Adopting the Euro and subsequently coming close to near-default is probably the best thing that could've ever happened to a nation like Greece. Their style of living was completely unsustainable. Hitting the wall with a strong currency prevented them from entering the long spiral downward.
Well, I agree that it was good for Greece, but it really sucks for more financially responsible countries that are tied to that currency as well -- like Germany.  They're having to prop up Greece for basically nothing in return.
Not sure it was so good for Greece tbh ...

The implementation of the Euro was a hasty project that wasn't thought through I believe, consumer goods got more exspensive, that again raised saleries that naturally raised corporate exspences ... exspences that was higher than the raised revenues gained from raised prices, that in addition to higher fiscal inrespocibilities fucked Greece over alongside endangering the economy of Portugal, Spain and Italy ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-09-13 06:37:33
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6390|eXtreme to the maX
Euro was always a joke, I remember when it came in in France pretty well everyone jacked up their prices for everything by 20-30%.
'You durnt laik eet? Go buy eet in Germany for eexczackly ze saim praice IN EUROS! Hohn hohn hohn hooooohnnn!'

OTOH having to design parts which were assembled in France from components and materials bought in Canada, France, Italy, Germany and the UK, which were sold into the UK and Germany with a 3% profit margin was pretty donfckn hard before the euro.
Fuck Israel
2010-09-13 06:55:36
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State
sexocracy, sexiest people run the government

exists only in california, and remains a sexist system.

really

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2010-09-13 06:56:07)

2010-09-13 09:01:02
Ticia
Member
+73|5620

Varegg wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Having a single currency forces fiscal responsibility. When a formerly sovereign state learns that it can no longer debase its currency to get out of debt you end up with austerity measures that force a correction in the internal market. Adopting the Euro and subsequently coming close to near-default is probably the best thing that could've ever happened to a nation like Greece. Their style of living was completely unsustainable. Hitting the wall with a strong currency prevented them from entering the long spiral downward.
Well, I agree that it was good for Greece, but it really sucks for more financially responsible countries that are tied to that currency as well -- like Germany.  They're having to prop up Greece for basically nothing in return.
Not sure it was so good for Greece tbh ...

The implementation of the Euro was a hasty project that wasn't thought through I believe, consumer goods got more exspensive, that again raised saleries that naturally raised corporate exspences ... exspences that was higher than the raised revenues gained from raised prices, that in addition to higher fiscal inrespocibilities fucked Greece over alongside endangering the economy of Portugal, Spain and Italy ...
Ain't that the truth?

But Galt is right too beacuse at the same time it helped clear the fog.
With no control over monetary policy,countries like Portugal had to stop using exchange rates and money injections as aspirins to hide the real problems.
The only way we'll ever grow economically is by innovation,increasing production and having a highly qualified workforce.
2010-09-13 10:11:58
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

Not exactly ... introducing the Euro was a false pretence of safety for economies of the likes of Greece etc etc ... you can't hide lack of fiscal irresponcibility behind a stronger currency for more than so long ... so what seems to have helped Greece in the short run only made it worse ...

Another issue that helped lesser European economies towards their fall was when the European parliament lowered the economic requirements for membership in the EU, when eastern European countries was admitted as members before they could meet a preset standard of requirements it started to go downhill ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-09-13 11:29:03
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6810|South Florida
Take america back to when a representative was needed every 10, 20, maybe even 50,000 people. Not the some 600000 people nowdays.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-09-13 12:04:23
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7001

Mitch wrote:

Take america back to when a representative was needed every 10, 20, maybe even 50,000 people. Not the some 600000 people nowdays.
you're an idiot.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-09-13 12:09:21
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Take america back to when a representative was needed every 10, 20, maybe even 50,000 people. Not the some 600000 people nowdays.
you're an idiot.
Nothing would ever get done. I'm a fan
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-09-13 12:14:29
.Sup
be nice
+2,646|6738|The Twilight Zone

Varegg wrote:

Not exactly ... introducing the Euro was a false pretence of safety for economies of the likes of Greece etc etc ... you can't hide lack of fiscal irresponcibility behind a stronger currency for more than so long ... so what seems to have helped Greece in the short run only made it worse ...

Another issue that helped lesser European economies towards their fall was when the European parliament lowered the economic requirements for membership in the EU, when eastern European countries was admitted as members before they could meet a preset standard of requirements it started to go downhill ...
Was that directed at Romania and Bulgaria?

interesting read btw
https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png
2010-09-13 12:50:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Take america back to when a representative was needed every 10, 20, maybe even 50,000 people. Not the some 600000 people nowdays.
you're an idiot.
Actually, Mitch makes a really good point.

Most countries with a bicameral legislature have dramatically increased the size of their legislature to account for increases in population.

We haven't...  this does actually lead to more disenfranchisement in America with regard to accurate representation.

The Constitutional maximum is stated as being 1 Representative per 30,000 people.  The current ratio varies widely by state.  Some states are grossly overrepresented, while others are grossly underrepresented.

A less dramatic proposal is the Wyoming Rule, where all states would have 1 Representative per the amount of people that live in Wyoming -- the least populous state.  Because it's hard to mathematically apply this in such a way that the ratio would actually remain consistent, it might take giving Wyoming 2 to 3 Representatives and using whatever that ratio works out to.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-13 12:53:27)

2010-09-13 12:57:59
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7001

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Take america back to when a representative was needed every 10, 20, maybe even 50,000 people. Not the some 600000 people nowdays.
you're an idiot.
Actually, Mitch makes a really good point.

Most countries with a bicameral legislature have dramatically increased the size of their legislature to account for increases in population.

We haven't...  this does actually lead to more disenfranchisement in America with regard to accurate representation.

The Constitutional maximum is stated as being 1 Representative per 30,000 people.  The current ratio varies widely by state.  Some states are grossly overrepresented, while others are grossly underrepresented.

A less dramatic proposal is the Wyoming Rule, where all states would have 1 Representative per the amount of people that live in Wyoming -- the least populous state.  Because it's hard to mathematically apply this in such a way that the ratio would actually remain consistent, it might take giving Wyoming 2 to 3 Representatives and using whatever that ratio works out to.
Think about how big the US population is. 50k per rep... in a country of 300 million... The senate needs a drastic change.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-09-13 13:06:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


you're an idiot.
Actually, Mitch makes a really good point.

Most countries with a bicameral legislature have dramatically increased the size of their legislature to account for increases in population.

We haven't...  this does actually lead to more disenfranchisement in America with regard to accurate representation.

The Constitutional maximum is stated as being 1 Representative per 30,000 people.  The current ratio varies widely by state.  Some states are grossly overrepresented, while others are grossly underrepresented.

A less dramatic proposal is the Wyoming Rule, where all states would have 1 Representative per the amount of people that live in Wyoming -- the least populous state.  Because it's hard to mathematically apply this in such a way that the ratio would actually remain consistent, it might take giving Wyoming 2 to 3 Representatives and using whatever that ratio works out to.
Think about how big the US population is. 50k per rep... in a country of 300 million... The senate needs a drastic change.
True, 3 Senators per state would probably balance things out as well.

However, as far as the House goes, the current ratio averages out to about 1 Representative per 650,000 people.  The problem with that is that some states have a much higher ratio.  Montana has 1 Representative for all 967,000 of its people.

So, in effect, Wyoming is actually overrepresented (they have only about 544,000 people), while Montana is underrepresented.
2010-09-13 13:34:25
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6810|South Florida

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Actually, Mitch makes a really good point.

Most countries with a bicameral legislature have dramatically increased the size of their legislature to account for increases in population.

We haven't...  this does actually lead to more disenfranchisement in America with regard to accurate representation.

The Constitutional maximum is stated as being 1 Representative per 30,000 people.  The current ratio varies widely by state.  Some states are grossly overrepresented, while others are grossly underrepresented.

A less dramatic proposal is the Wyoming Rule, where all states would have 1 Representative per the amount of people that live in Wyoming -- the least populous state.  Because it's hard to mathematically apply this in such a way that the ratio would actually remain consistent, it might take giving Wyoming 2 to 3 Representatives and using whatever that ratio works out to.
Think about how big the US population is. 50k per rep... in a country of 300 million... The senate needs a drastic change.
True, 3 Senators per state would probably balance things out as well.

However, as far as the House goes, the current ratio averages out to about 1 Representative per 650,000 people.  The problem with that is that some states have a much higher ratio.  Montana has 1 Representative for all 967,000 of its people.

So, in effect, Wyoming is actually overrepresented (they have only about 544,000 people), while Montana is underrepresented.
My thoughts behind it would be to better represent what the people ACTUALLY believe, rather than what a group of 900,000 people can "agree on"
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-09-13 14:36:23
Ticia
Member
+73|5620

Varegg wrote:

Not exactly ... introducing the Euro was a false pretence of safety for economies of the likes of Greece etc etc ... you can't hide lack of fiscal irresponcibility behind a stronger currency for more than so long ... so what seems to have helped Greece in the short run only made it worse ...

Another issue that helped lesser European economies towards their fall was when the European parliament lowered the economic requirements for membership in the EU, when eastern European countries was admitted as members before they could meet a preset standard of requirements it started to go downhill ...
Yes but when Portugal became a member back in 1986 if the Copenhagen criteria was already in place, we wouldn't be in the EU either.
The Eastern front is as appealing for both sides now as we were more than 20 years ago, in the long run they'll have big problems too but overall becoming a member really changed our country for better.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard