If you were running for president...

[Tani Coyote]

It's less about the abstract 'free trade' and more about the fact that every dollar of subsidies on corn, wheat and cotton royally screw over thousands of small farmers in Africa.

I for one am decidedly against screwing over farmers in Africa. Doesn't seem fair.

[/snipe]

All the more reason to work for the assimilation of those many poor farmers...

...it'd give us more of a focus for development aid, at least.

California produces enough food,

Good for California. Now, could that possibly cover the WHOLE United States sans the agricultural regions of the Midwest and South?

I think you're overestimating California's value in terms of agricultural production. The USA, after all, apparently controls nearly half the world's grain production. and I sincerely doubt California has the bulk of that.

Unless you have statistics...?

the Midwest would starve without California,

Umm... isn't the Midwest a low-density, mass agricultural region? How can you starve if you're surrounded by food? Short of idiocy.

and the South does what exactly?

I'm fairly certain they contribute cash crops and overall are an agricultural part of the nation, even if they've become more industrialised in recent years.

Isn't a large portion of the nuclear arsenal located in the small states as well?

For what it's worth, I'm a New Yorker - from the city as well. I just am disgusted at the complete arrogance Northerners and Westerners show towards the value of the central and southern United States. It doesn't help I'm against unchecked majoritarian rule as well, automatically causing me to side with the individual states.

 

[Karalysia]

We did fine without the South during the Civil War, in fact we did even better without them. We can do so again.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think it's because of what James Madison wrote in the Federalist #10. Remember the states created the federal government, not the other way around, so they wanted to protect those rights.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

"Tyranny of the majority".

If I am not mistaken this refers to the dangers of direct democracy, basically saying that people are too egoistic and unreasonable as that they should be allowed to directly rule their nation.
But of course one could also see the electoral system as another measure to soften American democracy which is in line with the same thought.

But let's look at the facts: During the time of the Founding Fathers democracy was still an unusual and kind of scary thing. Who would be surprised that the Founding Fathers were cautious in its implementation and wouldn't go all the way? I am not, in context of the time it is very understandable. Authoritarian school of thoughts had still a lot of importance among liberals as conservatives. That was simply the spirit of the time.
As for the "sovereign states"-issue: From a historic point of view it makes a lot of sense to me why they could only line up behind one final vote (as you said: they created the federal government, not the other way around). But well... so?
In the historic context many many things are making sense. When exactly did we start to judge todays politics according to ways which were an apparent necessity centuries ago? And when did we start to regard common opinions of people from a completely different time as the holy grail of wisdom?

I mean is that actually what most Americans think? That they are too egoistic and dumb to deserve more democracy? If no, then it is not so much why the USA has such a system, but more that it has such a system. You know.. USA #1 and such.

As a corollary that might hit home. I think this is precisely the reason why the EU President Von Rumpuy said you can't have a monetary union without some form of economic and political union. So who's more important to the integrity of the EU? The German voters in North Rhine Westphalia, Greece as a member, both or the votes of each EU citizen?

Well you are right when saying that the EU also seems afraid of too much democracy on a European level.

 

[Whomp]

If I am not mistaken this refers to the dangers of direct democracy, basically saying that people are too egoistic and unreasonable as that they should be allowed to directly rule their nation.
But of course one could also see the electoral system as another measure to soften American democracy which is in line with the same thought.

And those dangers continue without checks and balances. If all decisions were coming out of our most populous state we'd be absolutely screwed. California, New York, New Jersey, (my state) Illinois and Texas? I doubt the rest of the population would be too thrilled with the outcome especially when one considers the concentrated views from these states. California is a great example of a state that's handcuffed by their state's policies that would be a nightmare on a national scale.

But let's look at the facts: During the time of the Founding Fathers democracy was still an unusual and kind of scary thing. Who would be surprised that the Founding Fathers were cautious in its implementation and wouldn't go all the way? I am not, in context of the time it is very understandable. Authoritarian school of thoughts had still a lot of importance among liberals as conservatives. That was simply the spirit of the time.

What's changed? There are still charismatic leaders that are out of their minds.

As for the "sovereign states"-issue: From a historic point of view it makes a lot of sense to me why they could only line up behind one final vote (as you said: they created the federal government, not the other way around). But well... so?
In the historic context many many things are making sense. When exactly did we start to judge todays politics according to ways which were an apparent necessity centuries ago? And when did we start to regard common opinions of people from a completely different time as the holy grail of wisdom?

The problem is who said politicians have changed? This quote applies regardless of timeframe.
“In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill... we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one.” --Plato

I mean is that actually what most Americans think? That they are too egoistic and dumb to deserve more democracy? If no, then it is not so much why the USA has such a system, but more that it has such a system. You know.. USA #1 and such.

We're not nearly as homogeneous a nation and, in some cases, a very bright group of people like your country. It's geographically large, ideologically diverse and socially complex federal republic so I would say yes it's better to have broad representation from the house and narrow in the Senate. I don't see where that makes it USA #1.

So as Alexander Hamilton wrote "If the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent". We've attempted to change it ~700 times but haven't come up with anything better yet.

Well you are right when saying that the EU also seems afraid of too much democracy on a European level.

I find your structure much more perplexing and history (see Latin Union) has not been kind to unions that do not merge economics and politics.

 

[civ_king]

All the more reason to work for the assimilation of those many poor farmers...

...it'd give us more of a focus for development aid, at least.



Good for California. Now, could that possibly cover the WHOLE United States sans the agricultural regions of the Midwest and South?

I think you're overestimating California's value in terms of agricultural production. The USA, after all, apparently controls nearly half the world's grain production. and I sincerely doubt California has the bulk of that.

Unless you have statistics...?



Umm... isn't the Midwest a low-density, mass agricultural region? How can you starve if you're surrounded by food? Short of idiocy.



I'm fairly certain they contribute cash crops and overall are an agricultural part of the nation, even if they've become more industrialised in recent years.

Isn't a large portion of the nuclear arsenal located in the small states as well?

For what it's worth, I'm a New Yorker - from the city as well. I just am disgusted at the complete arrogance Northerners and Westerners show towards the value of the central and southern United States. It doesn't help I'm against unchecked majoritarian rule as well, automatically causing me to side with the individual states.

California produces enough food... for itself, and I'm not talking about grain

The center of the state is dominated by the Central Valley, one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world.

Agriculture (including fruit, vegetables, dairy, and wine production) is a major California industry. In fact, California is the world's fifth largest supplier of food and agriculture commodities.

the Central Valley produces 8 percent of the nation’s agricultural output by value...Four of the top five counties in agricultural sales in the U.S. are in the Central Valley

Is that good enough?



Take Iowa for example, it is full of basically inedible corn

 

[Karalysia]

I approve of the above post. We're better than everyone else.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And those dangers continue without checks and balances. If all decisions were coming out of our most populous state we'd be absolutely screwed. California, New York, New Jersey, (my state) Illinois and Texas? I doubt the rest of the population would be too thrilled with the outcome especially when one considers the concentrated views from these states. California is a great example of a state that's handcuffed by their state's policies that would be a nightmare on a national scale.

I don't see how those states would rule the rest. Isn't there a Republican Austrian in charge in the blue state of California? Do Illinois and Texas not belong to quit different political spectra overall?
And even if those states mentioned could be regarded as a homogeneous political front (which they clearly can't), they would still make up roughly one third of all potential voters, not half of it let alone a majority.

What's changed? There are still charismatic leaders that are out of their minds.
The problem is who said politicians have changed? This quote applies regardless of timeframe.
“In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill... we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one.” --Plato
I don't think anyone really presumes that if asked But sure I got your point. Democracy is inherently flawed.

We're not nearly as homogeneous a nation and, in some cases, a very bright group of people like your country. It's geographically large, ideologically diverse and socially complex federal republic so I would say yes it's better to have broad representation from the house and narrow in the Senate.

Now it becomes interesting. Am I reading this right? You would consider America too diverse to bare the voting power enjoyed in many other countries? This is an interesting point. Your electoral system sort of forces people in line by being strongly supportive of a limited number of parties and strongly oppressive towards minor opinions.
I actually can see the reasoning there. I still think such a system to be bad for many reasons, but well there is at least something to debate.
My "USA #1" notion referred to my believe that the overall population could not possible want this infringement of democratic rights because of actual reasoning but only because it is the American way and therefor must be the right way. And I actually still believe this to be true. Please say so if I am wrong.

I find your structure much more perplexing and history (see Latin Union) has not been kind to unions that do not merge economics and politics.

If you are looking for someone to defend the European system you will have to look elsewhere. The relation of power and representation is utmost ridiculous. Regarding the voting system I like the one most where politicians are ranked. It gives the single vote the most power.

 

[pesgores]

1-Stop with the growing policy of excusing outlaws.

2-Regulate the attribution of unemployment subsidy. People would rather stay put and receive the money than actually using it to get through while looking for a job. That must be stopped. But I'd never get the support of most congressmen, since they're mostly socialists and left-winged politicians who created the subsidies in the first place.

 

[GhostWriter16]

We did fine without the South during the Civil War, in fact we did even better without them. We can do so again.

The South nearly won, in many ways we would've been better off if they had, though the moral evil of slavery makes it hard to say so absolutely. It would've established state's rights, and it would've affirmed the principal of the founding fathers that if government became tyrannical, we the people have the right to overthrow it.

If a war EVER broke out in modern day over state's rights, I'd side with the states. But, back then, I'm not sure the Feds overstepped their rights. Even still, a lot of people say that just because the North won that war, the South would never try again, and the Feds can pretty much do whatever they want. These people are gravely mistaken.

 

[GhostWriter16]

1-Stop with the growing policy of excusing outlaws.

2-Regulate the attribution of unemployment subsidy. People would rather stay put and receive the money than actually using it to get through while looking for a job. That must be stopped. But I'd never get the support of most congressmen, since they're mostly socialists and left-winged politicians who created the subsidies in the first place.

A very true and enlightened statement

 

[civ_king]

The South nearly won, in many ways we would've been better off if they had, though the moral evil of slavery makes it hard to say so absolutely. It would've established state's rights, and it would've affirmed the principal of the founding fathers that if government became tyrannical, we the people have the right to overthrow it.

If a war EVER broke out in modern day over state's rights, I'd side with the states. But, back then, I'm not sure the Feds overstepped their rights. Even still, a lot of people say that just because the North won that war, the South would never try again, and the Feds can pretty much do whatever they want. These people are gravely mistaken.

yaya quicksand bedrock FTW!

 

[Dachs]

The South nearly won, in many ways we would've been better off if they had, though the moral evil of slavery makes it hard to say so absolutely. It would've established state's rights, and it would've affirmed the principal of the founding fathers that if government became tyrannical, we the people have the right to overthrow it.

If a war EVER broke out in modern day over state's rights, I'd side with the states. But, back then, I'm not sure the Feds overstepped their rights. Even still, a lot of people say that just because the North won that war, the South would never try again, and the Feds can pretty much do whatever they want. These people are gravely mistaken.

In the United States, treason is a capital crime, sport.

 

[Traitorfish]

The South nearly won, in many ways we would've been better off if they had, though the moral evil of slavery makes it hard to say so absolutely. It would've established state's rights, and it would've affirmed the principal of the founding fathers that if government became tyrannical, we the people have the right to overthrow it.

But wasn't the Union attempting to overthrow the racist tyranny of the Southern states? Why is sub-national tyranny more acceptable than national tyranny?

 

[phoenix_sprite]

I'd make it so British royalty would end being head of state of Canada, it's an outdated and unnecessary ritual. Let's see our founding fathers on our coins, not only the paper!

 

[GhostWriter16]

In the United States, treason is a capital crime, sport.

And rightfully so!!!

However, eventually, it can very well get to a point that STAYING in the Union would be treason against itself. As the founding fathers said about second amendment rights, it is the citizens duty to overthrow tyranny.

I am not advocating that that time has come, I am simply speaking of HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE EVENTS that's it.

And, seceding from the Union, IMO, cannot be treason regardless of what RULE OF MIGHT (AKA Civil War) established, the states did join the Union by choice, didn't they?

 

[GhostWriter16]

But wasn't the Union attempting to overthrow the racist tyranny of the Southern states? Why is sub-national tyranny more acceptable than national tyranny?

I do agree, which is why Lincoln was a great president, and that the South winning would not have been good.

However, I am for the South in basic principle (State's rights) I am not for the South in Specific Principle (Slavery ought to be allowed.)

At the end of the day, I am for intervention against tyrannical governments, and if able, I would hold to setting up Republics everywhere (Of course, this is not realistic, but it would, if possible, be a good idea) but I would not support the forcing of states to be in the Union, because then you can get tyrannical.

 

[Traitorfish]

I do agree, which is why Lincoln was a great president, and that the South winning would not have been good.

However, I am for the South in basic principle (State's rights) I am not for the South in Specific Principle (Slavery ought to be allowed.)

At the end of the day, I am for intervention against tyrannical governments, and if able, I would hold to setting up Republics everywhere (Of course, this is not realistic, but it would, if possible, be a good idea) but I would not support the forcing of states to be in the Union, because then you can get tyrannical.

I'll admit, that is, at least on the surface, a satisfactory response. I'm sure there's a deeper discussion to be had, but I'll refrain from nitpicking.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'll admit, that is, at least on the surface, a satisfactory response. I'm sure there's a deeper discussion to be had, but I'll refrain from nitpicking.

Very well then. I respect your opinions also.

 

[civ_king]

And rightfully so!!!

However, eventually, it can very well get to a point that STAYING in the Union would be treason against itself. As the founding fathers said about second amendment rights, it is the citizens duty to overthrow tyranny.

I am not advocating that that time has come, I am simply speaking of HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE EVENTS that's it.

And, seceding from the Union, IMO, cannot be treason regardless of what RULE OF MIGHT (AKA Civil War) established, the states did join the Union by choice, didn't they?

yes, to create a perpetual union (the constitution says more perfect union and the whole thing is massive expansion of Federal Powers so...)

 

[Dachs]

And since the Articles explicitly forbade secession...