You are right that corrupt people came first and built a corrupt system. But as long as the corrupt system is in place, it will attract corrupt people. So to get any change you need to alter the system to give a chance to non-corrupt people.
What's the point of states?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
You are right that corrupt people came first and built a corrupt system. But as long as the corrupt system is in place, it will attract corrupt people. So to get any change you need to alter the system to give a chance to non-corrupt people.
I can go along with that. My point is that the corruption is the root of it, not the system. The system follows the corruption, not the other way around.
Put another way, in North American football terms: back in 1990 Jack Pardee said, "You cannot play second-rate players and expect to win the game just because you lined up in the run-and-shoot". In other words you can play the most cutting-edge, domineering offense in college football, but if your players are not very good, you will still lose the game.
Put another way, in North American football terms: back in 1990 Jack Pardee said, "You cannot play second-rate players and expect to win the game just because you lined up in the run-and-shoot". In other words you can play the most cutting-edge, domineering offense in college football, but if your players are not very good, you will still lose the game.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
It seems to me that a lot of people in North America who are in power, whether they're in charge of political parties, electable public positions, or corporations, like to live by this philosophy: "The letter of the law is the only thing that matters, so we are going to ignore the spirit of the law and try to find loopholes in the laws - as they have been written, in order to make a quick buck, to try to help out a 'friend', and/or for so sort of ideological reason"
So basically what happens is everyone trying to game the system.. It's always going to be game-able too, since laws are so complex, and you'll never be able to put the spirit of the law into exact words - that work in every single situation. You'll always find loopholes, if you hire enough lawyers.
This sort of mentality is a part of the problem.
So basically what happens is everyone trying to game the system.. It's always going to be game-able too, since laws are so complex, and you'll never be able to put the spirit of the law into exact words - that work in every single situation. You'll always find loopholes, if you hire enough lawyers.
This sort of mentality is a part of the problem.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Well to be fair, politicians are just as likely to appeal to the spirit of the law when it suits their purposes - see the newest court fight over Obamacare.
(It's in court because the law is written very explicitly to say one thing even though the spirit of the law is quite different from that one passage. Also, the one passage only matters because another part of the law was gutted by the Supreme Court - the discrepancy only exists because another part was gutted)
So I guess what I'm saying is that politicians in NA are dickwads in general.
Except the ex-mayor of Toronto. That guy was epically fun to see in the news.
(It's in court because the law is written very explicitly to say one thing even though the spirit of the law is quite different from that one passage. Also, the one passage only matters because another part of the law was gutted by the Supreme Court - the discrepancy only exists because another part was gutted)
So I guess what I'm saying is that politicians in NA are dickwads in general.
Except the ex-mayor of Toronto. That guy was epically fun to see in the news.
I see all those states "forged out of history" just as much as any German states are. Granted, American states haven't had a thousand years of German upper classes bloodying each other stupid over small bits of territory and estates. But, German state formation is just as ridiculous looking as any American state. Just because its been around longer doesn't give it anymore legitimacy than borders drawn up one hundred years ago.
All borders are fictive, and all lines imaginary. Why does Switzerland contain the alps, rather than using them as a border? Why doesn't Russia stop at the Urals? Why does France stop randomly at Belgium's border? There's no river, or lake, or mountain range there, what gives? Geography only plays a role if we give it a role, or if its convenient. People are just as likely to use a geographic focal point as a border as they are want to gobble it up and keep it for themselves.
The lines were drawn by people who killed one another for them, and then killed some more to make them more cohesive with the rest of their country. Or, they agreed to stop killing each other past a line they agreed upon. I fail to see how that makes sense, is sane, or is not ridiculous. As Owen pointed out, the identity we derive from the lines drawn on the map comes from the fact that those lines were drawn on the map. The lines came first, then we molded our identities towards them. It's rarely the other way around when its so easy to ethnically cleanse.
Harv
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,987
^^It works like that when you play board-games with your buddies, does it not? Especially when one of them is really competitive and wants a rule interpretation that favors his situation?
I would say that is because power shifts over time from the state governments to the federal government. In Canada, from provincial governments to the federal government.
Sometimes, I think Canadian provinces show more resistance to the transfer of power than the US states.
Someday! Also, hi!
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
If you drive across the country, even the big square line states, there's a clear geographic switch across state lines, give or take a few dozen miles. Cultures are different too.
The most foreign place I've ever been is southern Utah.
The most foreign place I've ever been is southern Utah.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Th government is there to represent the will of the people, not the will of arbitrarily drawn states.
We tried a far more decentralized government once. It was called the articles of confederation and it failed miserably. So bad that Benjamen Franklin went to France for one of their princes to come over and be our King since over government was totally under the articles.
At its core, what is bureaucracy? An attempt to fight corruption with a system. And that is a fundamentally flawed premise. Just like putting locks on your car: why are they there? To keep car thieves out. Yet who ends up getting locked out more often: the car thieves, or the guy who actually owns the car? Without car thieves, no one locks their cars. Professional locksmiths get paid to pick locks legally just as the professional thieves do. The hope is that you impede the evil more than you impede the good, yet we all see that that meets with varying success. The underlying premise is wrong: going after the system rather than the corrupt.
The difference is that when Italy was formed, it was formed from parts that had their borders shaped before it was possible to do it by drawing lines on a map. That means you will no find any straight lines. There are some borders that are aligned to geographical features, but many are not. In the end it does not make much of a difference: the borders of the German states are as arbitrary and nonsensical as the borders of American states.
You do not put locks on your car to keep away professional thieves. You do it to prevent random people, who need a car, to just take yours. Without any locks, you would have to buy a new car much more often.
It is the same with corruption. You cannot totally prevent it. But you can put up some hurdles that take some criminal energy to overcome. That way you can prevent most of the corruption and prevent corruption to become systemic.
I admit that we tend to overdo the regulations to the point where the regulations hurt more than the corruption they prevent. But that does not mean that the principle is fundamentally flawed or that regulations do not work at all.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The biggest difference in that regard between the USA and Canada is the century between the two of them. The US Constitution is a constitution of philosophers and idealists, concerned with doing things the right way, with great principles and whatnot. As such, it is focused on limiting federal powers in the name of democracy, division of powers, etc.
The Canadian constitution is a constitution of industrialists and rail barons, and it was written to get the job done, not to defend principles. It also helped that they could peek over the border to see the parts of America that didn't work so well. As such, it is focused on attributing each possible power to the level of government best suited to dealing with it efficiently (and then making sure there are rules on how to split anything that they might have forgotten, and anything that might change category, and so forth).
This resulted in a much stronger federal government to start. Anything congress can do, parliament also can, and parliament also throws in a few extra powers congress only wish they had. For example, parliament has exclusive power over all of criminal law and banks. Oh, and the definition of marriage, which came in handy about a decade ago. Throw in the fact that the Peace, Order and Good Government clause is basically Interstate Commerce on steroids (and I mean how the federal government read interstate commerce)...
So while the provinces are very defensive about the federal messing with provincial powers, their powers are a lot less likely to limit the federal government.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah, because the nature of a board game is a competitive one in which there usually needs to be a winner at the end. So everyone is trying to become the winner, and as such people get trampled on and so on.
The world though belongs to all of humanity, and I know that sounds cheesy, but if everyone's just trying to screw over everyone else, that just doesn't produce a very fun or enjoyable society for people to live in.
hangman
almost-scientist
AFAIK there was a population threshold that qualified U.S. territories to become states, 6000 I think. Not counting the original 13 colonies, states were basically formed by the incentive of being able to vote, which I think would encourage large, sparsely populated chunks of land to file for state status, with no regard to the nonsensical boundaries that we have to deal with today.
I'd like to see states completely redrawn to capture cultural character. In particular, I would want Acadiana/New Orleans split from North Louisiana and maybe append the Beaumont area, since we often have competing cultural interests (i.e. Anglo-American Northerners and Cajun/Creole Southerners jockeying for power at each others' expense). Also maybe split Oregon and Washington east-from-west versus the current north-south, split California and Florida, group Indian Reservations in the Four Corners region into a separate state.
I like the idea of decentralizing the U.S.... this country is too big and unwieldy IMO. As for representation, we could just abolish the current Senate and choose some other selection scheme, like maybe only people with Ph.D.'s could run for office and vote for candidates.
That said, it could be fun to make a "redraw the states" thread, I'll start one
I'd like to see states completely redrawn to capture cultural character. In particular, I would want Acadiana/New Orleans split from North Louisiana and maybe append the Beaumont area, since we often have competing cultural interests (i.e. Anglo-American Northerners and Cajun/Creole Southerners jockeying for power at each others' expense). Also maybe split Oregon and Washington east-from-west versus the current north-south, split California and Florida, group Indian Reservations in the Four Corners region into a separate state.
I like the idea of decentralizing the U.S.... this country is too big and unwieldy IMO. As for representation, we could just abolish the current Senate and choose some other selection scheme, like maybe only people with Ph.D.'s could run for office and vote for candidates.
That said, it could be fun to make a "redraw the states" thread, I'll start one
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,306
As an Ohioan, I oppose any change that would more closely tie us with Michigan, including eliminating the state borders. We fought a spirited war over Toledo to establish that border! And the Ohio River forms the southern border. Says who they're arbitrary?
I think that debunks points 1 - 3, at least from Ohio's perspective. Point 4 seems to debunk itself, with the supreme productivity of the House in recent years.
I do not think the problem is with the Constitution, but instead in lack of following it, and in the people who are in the government (particularly elected officials). The Constitution is, after all, one of the oldest still-in-effect governing documents in the world, and has been largely effective.
If we are going to do away with it, how about doing away with the federation as opposed to the states? Sure, we can still have an Articles of Confederation for a few things like maintaining navy, establishing tariffs, and interstate transportation projects, but on everything else let the states take care of it. It could have some benefits, such as less polarized politics and less militaristic foreign policy.
Not that I'm seriously suggesting doing away with or restructuring the federal government, but I'd sooner start there than states in terms of something to reform (although that might be different depending on the state I lived in).
I think that debunks points 1 - 3, at least from Ohio's perspective. Point 4 seems to debunk itself, with the supreme productivity of the House in recent years.
I do not think the problem is with the Constitution, but instead in lack of following it, and in the people who are in the government (particularly elected officials). The Constitution is, after all, one of the oldest still-in-effect governing documents in the world, and has been largely effective.
If we are going to do away with it, how about doing away with the federation as opposed to the states? Sure, we can still have an Articles of Confederation for a few things like maintaining navy, establishing tariffs, and interstate transportation projects, but on everything else let the states take care of it. It could have some benefits, such as less polarized politics and less militaristic foreign policy.
Not that I'm seriously suggesting doing away with or restructuring the federal government, but I'd sooner start there than states in terms of something to reform (although that might be different depending on the state I lived in).
Similar threads
- Locked
