1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Man Murders Nine in Charleston Church

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cheezy the Wiz, Jun 18, 2015.

  1. FriendlyFire

    FriendlyFire Codex WMDicanious

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    19,583
    Location:
    Sydney
    One could also view Hitler as a Freedom Fighter Lincoln figure fighting and protecting the rights of non Jews against the global Bolshevik Jewish threat of genocide.
    That or he was evil and hes rehotric was all made up BS :mischief:
     
  2. Triewd

    Triewd Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    UK
    Er no.

    The autonomy of states is something critical to how America functions, I understand that and I am not even American.

    There are all sorts of compromises between federal power and state level power - upset that too much and you end up with another civil war on your hands.
     
  3. Lohrenswald

    Lohrenswald 老仁森林

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,029
    Location:
    The end
    Doesn't mean it should be
     
  4. Triewd

    Triewd Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Location:
    UK
    ok. how do you think America should function then?
     
  5. Lohrenswald

    Lohrenswald 老仁森林

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,029
    Location:
    The end
    At the very least they should disband the states and found a single government, elected by direct vote of all the people disregarding geography, that significally holds the market in chains

    Though I'd prefer the dictatorship of the proletariat
     
  6. Joecoolyo

    Joecoolyo 99% Lightspeed

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    茨城県
    Sounds like far too much to administer for one single body.

    We're a very large country, you know.
     
  7. Tahuti

    Tahuti Writing Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,492
    Gender:
    Male
    Certain Southern leaders said so. It doesn't mean the people who fought for secession all did so for slavery.

    Overcentralised countries generally collapse very easily: The Soviet Union did it and so did Pre-Revolutionary France with its abolition of seigneurial privileges in favour of the crown. Many of the problems Iraq and Syria face stem from the overly centralisationist tendencies of Ba'ath rule. Oh, and Somalia, just before they embraced Rothbardianism.

    In fact, from a social democratic perspective, the US states should have significant amounts of autonomy. Every state has a distinctive demography and needs social safety nets adapted accordingly. Besides, 300 million is simply too much: It is an administrative pain in the butt. Norway's welfare system works for a great deal because it is relatively small polity in terms of inhabitants.

    What I also find weird is that you pretty much have a very states' rights view in regards to the European Union. I guess you just want to pester the USA, though I'd gladly join you that!
     
  8. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    46,663
    Location:
    US of A

    They wouldn't have fought at all if not for slavery. As there was no other issue being fought over.
     
  9. Tahuti

    Tahuti Writing Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,492
    Gender:
    Male
    The South had an agrarian economy and very little industry. Slavery or not, it was not in the interests of the south to have the north control federal economic policy, which it did. That being said, I still acknowledge slavery played a very big role in the civil war and southern secession.
     
  10. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    Describe how that is in the least bit important, much less "something critical".

    Given that any state would possibly be that stupid, how are untrained civilians with a few rifles and shotguns going to pose any sort of threat to the US military?

    Name any other advanced country which has a similar concept of states that have as much power to enact their own laws. Why haven't they all failed?

    Describe even one of these "distinctive demographies" and "social safety nets" which are essential. Explain how federal agencies do not function despite catering to all Americans at the national level.

    Only the EU isn't a country. It is an amalgamation of countries. States don't have any sort of sovereignty because all those functions are reserved for the federal government.
     
  11. Lohrenswald

    Lohrenswald 老仁森林

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    Messages:
    6,029
    Location:
    The end
    There would be districts to administer local tasks. It's just that: 1. they don't get to decide how (for example: the central government decides curriculum in schools, and standard of hospitals), and 2. elections at national level don't take them into account, though there would be local elections in these districts.

    Doesn't mean it's not preferrable. See above, I guess

    I would dispute you in this. As stated, there are local districts to lessen administration costs. And I have large problems with the arbitraryness of the american states, there isn't anything distinct about their demographics

    I don't think so. We have 19 counties divided into 428 communes pluss Svalbard to do all of this. There is not much unitarian about it.
    (And I don't conscider Norway's welfare system as the end goal)

    To some extent, I suppose. But this is also nation's rights, where the claim that the demographics are distincitve hold much more water (that's how that expression goes right?)

    And I must also repeat: The main issue with the EU is its policies and values, not the union of countries in of itself (at least as much, I do enjoy this independence :undecide:)
     
  12. Mr. Dictator

    Mr. Dictator A Chain-Smoking Fox

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    9,094
    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    By this logic, the Iraq War was at least partially fought for the free college.
     
  13. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    Apparently, nobody gets as irate as privileged Southern whites in the 1800s who thought they were being persecuted by clearly imaginary forces, and who wanted to secede as a result. Because the fact that South Carolina seceded strictly due to slavery just isn't enough factual basis for some people 150 years later.
     
  14. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    18,771
    Location:
    Canberra
    For the record part of the reason I want our flag changed is the genocidal white supremacy the Union Jack represents in an Australian context...
     
  15. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    Is there a movement underway to do so?
     
  16. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    18,771
    Location:
    Canberra
    Somewhat. It's loosely tied up in the republican movement and I think it's in Labor's platform somewhere to have a debate on new symbols for Australia. Prime Minister Paul Keating publicly championed it in the 1990s and some polls showed majority support.

    Howard legislated to make change more difficult and made it compulsory for all schools to fly the thing in 2004. And the new bogan nationalism and generally demented small-minded nature of Australian politics now probably makes it harder to change these days.

    New Zealand changing their flag might give it a bit of a boost.
     
  17. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    46,663
    Location:
    US of A
    A Stalinist purge."
    —

    SC state Sen. Lee Bright on removing Confederate flag from State House lawn
     
  18. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    46,663
    Location:
    US of A

    The South had the balance of control of the US government.
     
  19. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,713
    Given historical patterns in the world, one should at least suspect that anything said was to pay lip service to a power grab. Maintaining or gaining power is a strong incentive, to the point where it can involve human rights violations that are rationalized. The act in question is usually to 1) keep power and 2) fabricate "x" as opposed to the other way around, best I can tell.

    So with that in mind, I assert the south in the 1800s wanted to secede in order to keep the power yielded by slavery (as well as anything else beneficial to the new leaders), and their assertions of persecution were a fabricated claim to get their people to go along with it. This is in contrast to similar claims today, where the goal is not secession or slavery (because those things won't give much power and/or are more risky), but rather to "say whatever I believe necessary to attain votes and support from my party". I don't believe they buy what they're selling, because they'd have to be stupid...and their consistent attainment of wealth and winning elections/power are counter-evidence to a sheer stupidity explanation.

    Slavery (said human rights violation in this case) was a means cruel means to an end. What the leaders in the south valued was the power and wealth owning slaves gave them. It's not unlike nobles revolting against the crown centuries prior, even if the crown's unpopular laws are just.

    There are reasonable dangers to over-centralization that you can't safely hand-wave. If the central government decides school curriculum, the central government has strong incentive to indoctrinate children in its schools in an effort to perpetuate itself.

    Administration of law and logistics at a regional level, where the people voting are the ones who actually live with the implications of the law in that area, has some degree of appeal too. Some ideas work better or worse depending on population density, infrastructure available, and resources to name a few things. A strict law about weekly water usage makes sense if it makes sure that everyone has access to clean water. It does not make sense if everyone could use 100x as much water and still not come close to depleting area's rate of replenishing it.

    You do want some degree of power/influence/decisions at the regional level or the inefficiency gets crushing. It's valid to question how much power and how large regions should be to be optimal, however.

    What makes you think the government can outperform "the market" to the point where putting it "in chains" is preferable? Are elected officials consistently the ones with the most financial/economic expertise? IMO, right now the biggest problem in this regard is that there is too much influence between government and "the market", to the point of heavy lobbies/interest groups having tremendous influence.
     
  20. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    I would argue that recent history in the US has shown just the opposite is the real problem. A handful of moms and dads in Texas (apparently many of them bigoted, poorly educated, and highly religious), decide what school texts that all Texas children use. It is a large enough market that textbook vendors sell two versions of history and science books: One for Texas and a number of other states that decide to use their alternate version of reality, and one for the rest of the US. You can't stop local teachers and their parents from indoctrinating children. But you can assure they are provided with textbooks that contradict what they try to teach them to grow up to be just like themselves.

    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    I would agree just as long as they are no longer allowed to enact the critically important laws. We should all be held to the same criminal statutes. We should all have the same laws concerning our rights.

    Again, history has shown that some states abuse these laws on a regular basis. And they do so not on a secular basis, but on a religious one. It is time to finally end the frequently vindictive and highly arbitrary Christian version of Sharia law in the US. But as long as we allow states the power to enact such laws, it will continue.

    The chances of such laws passing at the federal level still exist, but to a lesser degree. When they are passed we desperately need a Supreme Court that doesn't have reactionaries on it to strike down the ones that are unconstitutional.

    Indeed. The compromises that our founding fathers had to make to get the Southern states to even join the union are the real problem. They gave states far too much authority because the Southern states thought the federal government would eventually try to take their slaves away from them. And they were right. We need to resolve this issue which has plagued this country since its inception.

    They also even wanted the authority to create theocratic states if they desired. All 13 original colonies had state-supported religions during much of their history. Many of them required that all elected official be Christians. Some even required that everybody attend church on Sunday or be punished:

    Examples:

    Spoiler :
    Fortunately, it was struck down by their state constitution enacted when they became a state.

    Ironically, you could practice Christianity just about any way you wanted in may of them. Other religions? Not so much...
     

Share This Page