CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

But why limit them? You still haven't explained how the State of New Mexico and the town of Rio Rancho teaming up to provide financial incentives for Intel to locate in Rio Rancho violates any concept of equal protection. Because this was a deal that was truly social contract, nobody was disadvantaged in any way and the people of New Mexico have all benefitted from it including more opportunity for thousands and lower taxes for everybody who pays state taxes.

I consider discriminatory taxation a violation of equal protection. Would you also approve if state or local government offered lower tax rates to people with high IQs? Surely, adding more smart people to the local population would benefit the community, right?

I believe government, regardless of scope, is there to protect our freedom to create the kind of communities we want, voluntarily, as free individuals. It shouldn't be used as a tool to force others to adhere to our vision of the ideal community.

Your earlier post suggested that you would favor the federal government being given authority to prevent states and local communities from making these kinds of deals. You could be right. But I still haven't seen a good argument for why the federal government should be given that authority.

It would be approximately the same argument for giving federal government the right to ban slavery, or Jim Crow laws, or any other violation of basic civil liberties.

Again it all comes down to what we mean by liberty and whether we believe liberty is the freedom to be wrong as well as right.

Remember that the federal government not only condoned but encouraged and practiced Jim Crow laws until Harry Truman desegregated the military and then gradually the barriers began coming down. The Supreme Court gave clear consent to the Jim Crow laws in Plessy v Ferguson. Even Abraham Lincoln himself, who was instrumental in abolishing slavery, almost certainly more to save the union than for the benefit of the slaves, believed in segregation as the proper order of things and is on record that he saw the white race as the superior race.

But now fast forward 150 or even 50 years and you find a different American culture with much different perspectives on issues of race and a much different culture than existed in either Lincoln's time or Truman's time. There is no way that more than a teensy minority of Americans anywhere would now agree to restoraton of any form of Jim Crow laws or anything close to that

In a new or improved U.S. Constitution, the federal government should certainly be prohibited from applying any form of favoritism to any person, entity, group, or demographics in its laws, regulation, tax code, or application or enforcement.

But I have a problem with the federal government imposing the same rules on the states. That should be left up to the people in each state to do.

Liberty requires the ability to make wrong choices as well as good ones.

(I personally would not likely choose to live in a state that practiced favoritism to anybody.)

 

[Montrovant]

If they're giving preferential treatment to specific people, or specific classes of people, that's an obvious violation of equal protection. How is it not?
They should be allowed to do that, on a voluntary basis. If some members of the community want to make a pledge to give Wal-mart a portion of their income for the next three years, to encourage them open a store there - that's their business. But they have no right to force their neighbors to play along.

This is based on some of my personal research for a presentation I did awhile back. In the late 1970's, Rio Rancho was a small town 100% dependent on Albuquerque for its very existence as it had no resources and little economic future for its fewer than 9,000 people. It depended on Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe or other nearby cities to school the kids, for hospitals, for ambulance service, and at times had to depend on the county for police protection as well as for most of the jobs for the people.

But visionary community leaders realized Intel was looking to build a new plant. They had annexed a large tract of undeveloped land that was essentially worthless for farming or ranching and not attractive for housing development. So after getting support from the towns people to offer the land, they got an agreement from the state for tax concessions for ten years for a new enterprise should they be able to entice Intel to Rio Rancho.

The discussions included such concepts as would there be any significant out-of-pocket expenses for the town or the state? Answer: no.

Would Intel be competing with any other New Mexico businesses or cause any negative economic impact? Answer. No.

The offer was made and Intel accepted the land and tax advantages and opened their new facility in 1980 and quickly became New Mexico's largest private sector industrial employer. Within a decade Rio Rancho has become one of New Mexico's larger cities and at least until recently was the fastest growing city in New Mexico and on just about everybody's list of most desirable places to move. Because of Intel they now have their own thriving commercial base, hospitals, schools, and are dependent on nobody.

In 2013 the Albuquerque Journal reported the impact Intel has had on the State:

Intel Rio Rancho: by the numbers
Intel operations have a $909 million average annual economic impact on New Mexico.
The company:
• Spends an average of $245 million annually with New Mexico businesses.
• Has made an average of $1 billion annually in capital investments in New Mexico since 1995.
• Directly employs about 3,300 people, indirectly generating 26 additional jobs in New Mexico for every 10 Intel workers.
• Accounts for about 50 percent of all New Mexico exports annually.
• Contributes more than $4 million a year to local nonprofits and schools.

I think the people of Rio Rancho and New Mexico have most definitely gotten their money's worth for their investment in economic enticement.

I have to believe that the people of the individual states are as able to determine what is fair and just for them more than the federal government is likely to determine that.

We have been in agreement that liberty by its very nature must allow people the ability to make bad or wrong choices as well as good ones. Liberty must allow people to get it wrong as well as right.

I think that has to apply to how each state looks to its own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to individuals, not states.

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I have a quick question. If we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, why do you consider the separation of the states important? How is the will of the people better served by having representation at the state level separate from the federal level, particularly in this connected, digital age? If scale is the answer (each individual is better able to enjoy his/her freedom at a smaller scale) why stop at the current states? Why not, for example, make each county its own state? We could have the 500 rather than 50 states of the United States.

Other than tradition, I've often wondered why people seem to find the states, as they stand, to be so important. State government is just as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, and modern travel and communications make the differences of distance far less an issue than they were in the past. If nothing else, why not remake state borders so they are less arbitrary?

It should be up to the people of the states involved to make any changes to state borders.

As for state government being as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, yes it is. But as long as the federal government exercises its proper authority to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other, such corruption and abuse is limited to that state instead of the whole country. The people of that state can either choose to deal with it and correct it or move elsewhere without giving up their country. In my opinion, when the people are more dependent on their state instead of the federal government for good government, they are far more likely to demand and get good state government.

But when the federal government oversteps its authority with abuse and corruption, we have nowhere to go other than to give up our country. And it is far more difficult for any given area to have much influence in that regard or be able to focus on the particular needs of their own state.

The smaller and more local government is, the better that government is likely to be.

My point is based in the hypothetical we're involved in here. If we're to rewrite the constitution, what reason would there be to maintain the states as they currently exist? Certainly some of the borders seem arbitrary and silly, if nothing else. But why stop at the states? Why not give each county the same authorities and responsibilities of the states? If smaller and more local government is better, why not focus power on as small a scale as feasible?

I'm not advocating actually removing or changing the states (although I really do think more regular borders might be a good idea ), I'm just wondering why, if we're discussing a complete rewrite of the rules of the nation, the states as they currently stand should be retained. Is it simply tradition; we're used to it that way? That's a perfectly valid reason, but sometimes people who are particularly vehement states rights advocates give the impression it's more than that, and I thought you might have another reason.

 

[Montrovant]

But why limit them? You still haven't explained how the State of New Mexico and the town of Rio Rancho teaming up to provide financial incentives for Intel to locate in Rio Rancho violates any concept of equal protection. Because this was a deal that was truly social contract, nobody was disadvantaged in any way and the people of New Mexico have all benefitted from it including more opportunity for thousands and lower taxes for everybody who pays state taxes.

I consider discriminatory taxation a violation of equal protection. Would you also approve if state or local government offered lower tax rates to people with high IQs? Surely, adding more smart people to the local population would benefit the community, right?

I believe government, regardless of scope, is there to protect our freedom to create the kind of communities we want, voluntarily, as free individuals. It shouldn't be used as a tool to force others to adhere to our vision of the ideal community.

Your earlier post suggested that you would favor the federal government being given authority to prevent states and local communities from making these kinds of deals. You could be right. But I still haven't seen a good argument for why the federal government should be given that authority.

It would be approximately the same argument for giving federal government the right to ban slavery, or Jim Crow laws, or any other violation of basic civil liberties.

Again it all comes down to what we mean by liberty and whether we believe liberty is the freedom to be wrong as well as right.

Remember that the federal government not only condoned but encouraged and practiced Jim Crow laws until Harry Truman desegregated the military and then gradually the barriers began coming down. The Supreme Court gave clear consent to the Jim Crow laws in Plessy v Ferguson. Even Abraham Lincoln himself, who was instrumental in abolishing slavery, almost certainly more to save the union than for the benefit of the slaves, believed in segregation as the proper order of things and is on record that he saw the white race as the superior race.

But now fast forward 150 or even 50 years and you find a different American culture with much different perspectives on issues of race and a much different culture than existed in either Lincoln's time or Truman's time. There is no way that more than a teensy minority of Americans anywhere would now agree to restoraton of any form of Jim Crow laws or anything close to that

In a new or improved U.S. Constitution, the federal government should certainly be prohibited from applying any form of favoritism to any person, entity, group, or demographics in its laws, regulation, tax code, or application or enforcement.

But I have a problem with the federal government imposing the same rules on the states. That should be left up to the people in each state to do.

Liberty requires the ability to make wrong choices as well as good ones.

(I personally would not likely choose to live in a state that practiced favoritism to anybody.)

I want to be sure I'm understanding you here.

Are you saying that you think the federal government should be prohibited from any sort of favoritism, but you are fine with the states showing favoritism should they so choose? Would you find it acceptable for a state to legalize discrimination against a particular group, be it racial or gender or age based, so long as the majority of the people of that state supported it?

I guess I'm asking if you'd remove the equal protection clause of the 14th. If you've already discussed this I apologize; I've only occasionally ventured into the thread and have not read it in its entirety.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is based on some of my personal research for a presentation I did awhile back. In the late 1970's, Rio Rancho was a small town 100% dependent on Albuquerque for its very existence as it had no resources and little economic future for its fewer than 9,000 people. It depended on Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe or other nearby cities to school the kids, for hospitals, for ambulance service, and at times had to depend on the county for police protection as well as for most of the jobs for the people.

But visionary community leaders realized Intel was looking to build a new plant. They had annexed a large tract of undeveloped land that was essentially worthless for farming or ranching and not attractive for housing development. So after getting support from the towns people to offer the land, they got an agreement from the state for tax concessions for ten years for a new enterprise should they be able to entice Intel to Rio Rancho.

The discussions included such concepts as would there be any significant out-of-pocket expenses for the town or the state? Answer: no.

Would Intel be competing with any other New Mexico businesses or cause any negative economic impact? Answer. No.

The offer was made and Intel accepted the land and tax advantages and opened their new facility in 1980 and quickly became New Mexico's largest private sector industrial employer. Within a decade Rio Rancho has become one of New Mexico's larger cities and at least until recently was the fastest growing city in New Mexico and on just about everybody's list of most desirable places to move. Because of Intel they now have their own thriving commercial base, hospitals, schools, and are dependent on nobody.

In 2013 the Albuquerque Journal reported the impact Intel has had on the State:

Intel Rio Rancho: by the numbers
Intel operations have a $909 million average annual economic impact on New Mexico.
The company:
• Spends an average of $245 million annually with New Mexico businesses.
• Has made an average of $1 billion annually in capital investments in New Mexico since 1995.
• Directly employs about 3,300 people, indirectly generating 26 additional jobs in New Mexico for every 10 Intel workers.
• Accounts for about 50 percent of all New Mexico exports annually.
• Contributes more than $4 million a year to local nonprofits and schools.

I think the people of Rio Rancho and New Mexico have most definitely gotten their money's worth for their investment in economic enticement.

I have to believe that the people of the individual states are as able to determine what is fair and just for them more than the federal government is likely to determine that.

We have been in agreement that liberty by its very nature must allow people the ability to make bad or wrong choices as well as good ones. Liberty must allow people to get it wrong as well as right.

I think that has to apply to how each state looks to its own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to individuals, not states.

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I have a quick question. If we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, why do you consider the separation of the states important? How is the will of the people better served by having representation at the state level separate from the federal level, particularly in this connected, digital age? If scale is the answer (each individual is better able to enjoy his/her freedom at a smaller scale) why stop at the current states? Why not, for example, make each county its own state? We could have the 500 rather than 50 states of the United States.

Other than tradition, I've often wondered why people seem to find the states, as they stand, to be so important. State government is just as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, and modern travel and communications make the differences of distance far less an issue than they were in the past. If nothing else, why not remake state borders so they are less arbitrary?

It should be up to the people of the states involved to make any changes to state borders.

As for state government being as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, yes it is. But as long as the federal government exercises its proper authority to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other, such corruption and abuse is limited to that state instead of the whole country. The people of that state can either choose to deal with it and correct it or move elsewhere without giving up their country. In my opinion, when the people are more dependent on their state instead of the federal government for good government, they are far more likely to demand and get good state government.

But when the federal government oversteps its authority with abuse and corruption, we have nowhere to go other than to give up our country. And it is far more difficult for any given area to have much influence in that regard or be able to focus on the particular needs of their own state.

The smaller and more local government is, the better that government is likely to be.

My point is based in the hypothetical we're involved in here. If we're to rewrite the constitution, what reason would there be to maintain the states as they currently exist? Certainly some of the borders seem arbitrary and silly, if nothing else. But why stop at the states? Why not give each county the same authorities and responsibilities of the states? If smaller and more local government is better, why not focus power on as small a scale as feasible?

I'm not advocating actually removing or changing the states (although I really do think more regular borders might be a good idea ), I'm just wondering why, if we're discussing a complete rewrite of the rules of the nation, the states as they currently stand should be retained. Is it simply tradition; we're used to it that way? That's a perfectly valid reason, but sometimes people who are particularly vehement states rights advocates give the impression it's more than that, and I thought you might have another reason.

Again the best argument to retain the states as they are or as they choose to be is because Texans are largely different from most Californians. People who choose to live in New York enjoy a different culture than those who live in Montana. A heavily industrial state like Pennsylvania will want a somewhat different emphasis in government than a largely rural state like North Dakota.

If Massachusetts wants a universal healthcare plan, and its people are okay with that, it will be its own little laboratory and other states can choose to copy what Massachusetts does or do something different or leave things with the private sector if that is what is best for them. One state that screws things up or is mired in graft and corruption won't be imposing that screw up and graft/corruption on everybody else.

But again, the individual citizen has a much more manageable problem to rally objections to misconduct in his/her state and deal with it. Or if the rules, reg, etc. in one state are not to his/her liking, he/she can move to a different state without giving up his/her benefits of citizenship in the USA. But if the federal government becomes intolerable, then the citizen has nowhere to go without giving up his/her country.

 

[Montrovant]

"Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" apply to individuals, not states.

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I have a quick question. If we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, why do you consider the separation of the states important? How is the will of the people better served by having representation at the state level separate from the federal level, particularly in this connected, digital age? If scale is the answer (each individual is better able to enjoy his/her freedom at a smaller scale) why stop at the current states? Why not, for example, make each county its own state? We could have the 500 rather than 50 states of the United States.

Other than tradition, I've often wondered why people seem to find the states, as they stand, to be so important. State government is just as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, and modern travel and communications make the differences of distance far less an issue than they were in the past. If nothing else, why not remake state borders so they are less arbitrary?

It should be up to the people of the states involved to make any changes to state borders.

As for state government being as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, yes it is. But as long as the federal government exercises its proper authority to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other, such corruption and abuse is limited to that state instead of the whole country. The people of that state can either choose to deal with it and correct it or move elsewhere without giving up their country. In my opinion, when the people are more dependent on their state instead of the federal government for good government, they are far more likely to demand and get good state government.

But when the federal government oversteps its authority with abuse and corruption, we have nowhere to go other than to give up our country. And it is far more difficult for any given area to have much influence in that regard or be able to focus on the particular needs of their own state.

The smaller and more local government is, the better that government is likely to be.

My point is based in the hypothetical we're involved in here. If we're to rewrite the constitution, what reason would there be to maintain the states as they currently exist? Certainly some of the borders seem arbitrary and silly, if nothing else. But why stop at the states? Why not give each county the same authorities and responsibilities of the states? If smaller and more local government is better, why not focus power on as small a scale as feasible?

I'm not advocating actually removing or changing the states (although I really do think more regular borders might be a good idea ), I'm just wondering why, if we're discussing a complete rewrite of the rules of the nation, the states as they currently stand should be retained. Is it simply tradition; we're used to it that way? That's a perfectly valid reason, but sometimes people who are particularly vehement states rights advocates give the impression it's more than that, and I thought you might have another reason.

Again the best argument to retain the states as they are or as they choose to be is because Texans are largely different from most Californians. People who choose to live in New York enjoy a different culture than those who live in Montana. A heavily industrial state like Pennsylvania will want a somewhat different emphasis in government than a largely rural state like North Dakota.

If Massachusetts wants a universal healthcare plan, and its people are okay with that, it will be its own little laboratory and other states can choose to copy what Massachusetts does or do something different or leave things with the private sector if that is what is best for them. One state that screws things up or is mired in graft and corruption won't be imposing that screw up and graft/corruption on everybody else.

But again, the individual citizen has a much more manageable problem to rally objections to misconduct in his/her state and deal with it. Or if the rules, reg, etc. in one state are not to his/her liking, he/she can move to a different state without giving up his/her benefits of citizenship in the USA. But if the federal government becomes intolerable, then the citizen has nowhere to go without giving up his/her country.

Even assuming you are correct (and I think that, in large part, you are not; while people will have some differences from state to state, I think there are more differences between people living in the city vs the country, different socio-economic statuses, etc.), why the states as they are in particular? There are differences between people from different parts of the same state; why not get rid of the states and use cities or counties, or create smaller states, which will give smaller, more local governments, if we're rewriting the constitution anyway? An individual would have a much easier time moving to a different county than a different state, and there would be more options with more areas to choose from that have differing rules. That's what I'm asking. What is it about the states as they stand, in particular, that makes them optimal? Is there anything, or is it just because that's what we are all used to?

 

[Foxfyre]

But why limit them? You still haven't explained how the State of New Mexico and the town of Rio Rancho teaming up to provide financial incentives for Intel to locate in Rio Rancho violates any concept of equal protection. Because this was a deal that was truly social contract, nobody was disadvantaged in any way and the people of New Mexico have all benefitted from it including more opportunity for thousands and lower taxes for everybody who pays state taxes.

I consider discriminatory taxation a violation of equal protection. Would you also approve if state or local government offered lower tax rates to people with high IQs? Surely, adding more smart people to the local population would benefit the community, right?

I believe government, regardless of scope, is there to protect our freedom to create the kind of communities we want, voluntarily, as free individuals. It shouldn't be used as a tool to force others to adhere to our vision of the ideal community.

Your earlier post suggested that you would favor the federal government being given authority to prevent states and local communities from making these kinds of deals. You could be right. But I still haven't seen a good argument for why the federal government should be given that authority.

It would be approximately the same argument for giving federal government the right to ban slavery, or Jim Crow laws, or any other violation of basic civil liberties.

Again it all comes down to what we mean by liberty and whether we believe liberty is the freedom to be wrong as well as right.

Remember that the federal government not only condoned but encouraged and practiced Jim Crow laws until Harry Truman desegregated the military and then gradually the barriers began coming down. The Supreme Court gave clear consent to the Jim Crow laws in Plessy v Ferguson. Even Abraham Lincoln himself, who was instrumental in abolishing slavery, almost certainly more to save the union than for the benefit of the slaves, believed in segregation as the proper order of things and is on record that he saw the white race as the superior race.

But now fast forward 150 or even 50 years and you find a different American culture with much different perspectives on issues of race and a much different culture than existed in either Lincoln's time or Truman's time. There is no way that more than a teensy minority of Americans anywhere would now agree to restoraton of any form of Jim Crow laws or anything close to that

In a new or improved U.S. Constitution, the federal government should certainly be prohibited from applying any form of favoritism to any person, entity, group, or demographics in its laws, regulation, tax code, or application or enforcement.

But I have a problem with the federal government imposing the same rules on the states. That should be left up to the people in each state to do.

Liberty requires the ability to make wrong choices as well as good ones.

(I personally would not likely choose to live in a state that practiced favoritism to anybody.)

I want to be sure I'm understanding you here.

Are you saying that you think the federal government should be prohibited from any sort of favoritism, but you are fine with the states showing favoritism should they so choose? Would you find it acceptable for a state to legalize discrimination against a particular group, be it racial or gender or age based, so long as the majority of the people of that state supported it?

I guess I'm asking if you'd remove the equal protection clause of the 14th. If you've already discussed this I apologize; I've only occasionally ventured into the thread and have not read it in its entirety.

I've thought a lot about that and I think I would retain the 14th Amendment prohibiting, as a condition of membership in the union, any state government from discriminating for or against any individual, group, or entity based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Where I draw the line is when the federal government presumes to dictate to the private citizen what he/she must or must not do in that regard.

Does that mean I advocate discrimination? Absolutely not. I wouldn't do business with or belong to an entity or organization that practiced anything other than NECESSARY discrimination because of the nature of the entity or organization.

But liberty requires the ability to be who and what we are even if our choices in that matter are disgusting, repugnant, hateful, or unacceptable to most.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh come on. Only people can look to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So you know very well what I mean when I say that each state--or if you insist that I spell it out--the PEOPLE of each state--must be able to look to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as they see fit or we might as well give the federal government all the authority as some seem to want it to have.

At any rate, would you comment on the argument I made for allowing states or local communities to provide economic incentives? Or explain what objection you have to that.

I have a quick question. If we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, why do you consider the separation of the states important? How is the will of the people better served by having representation at the state level separate from the federal level, particularly in this connected, digital age? If scale is the answer (each individual is better able to enjoy his/her freedom at a smaller scale) why stop at the current states? Why not, for example, make each county its own state? We could have the 500 rather than 50 states of the United States.

Other than tradition, I've often wondered why people seem to find the states, as they stand, to be so important. State government is just as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, and modern travel and communications make the differences of distance far less an issue than they were in the past. If nothing else, why not remake state borders so they are less arbitrary?

It should be up to the people of the states involved to make any changes to state borders.

As for state government being as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, yes it is. But as long as the federal government exercises its proper authority to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other, such corruption and abuse is limited to that state instead of the whole country. The people of that state can either choose to deal with it and correct it or move elsewhere without giving up their country. In my opinion, when the people are more dependent on their state instead of the federal government for good government, they are far more likely to demand and get good state government.

But when the federal government oversteps its authority with abuse and corruption, we have nowhere to go other than to give up our country. And it is far more difficult for any given area to have much influence in that regard or be able to focus on the particular needs of their own state.

The smaller and more local government is, the better that government is likely to be.

My point is based in the hypothetical we're involved in here. If we're to rewrite the constitution, what reason would there be to maintain the states as they currently exist? Certainly some of the borders seem arbitrary and silly, if nothing else. But why stop at the states? Why not give each county the same authorities and responsibilities of the states? If smaller and more local government is better, why not focus power on as small a scale as feasible?

I'm not advocating actually removing or changing the states (although I really do think more regular borders might be a good idea ), I'm just wondering why, if we're discussing a complete rewrite of the rules of the nation, the states as they currently stand should be retained. Is it simply tradition; we're used to it that way? That's a perfectly valid reason, but sometimes people who are particularly vehement states rights advocates give the impression it's more than that, and I thought you might have another reason.

Again the best argument to retain the states as they are or as they choose to be is because Texans are largely different from most Californians. People who choose to live in New York enjoy a different culture than those who live in Montana. A heavily industrial state like Pennsylvania will want a somewhat different emphasis in government than a largely rural state like North Dakota.

If Massachusetts wants a universal healthcare plan, and its people are okay with that, it will be its own little laboratory and other states can choose to copy what Massachusetts does or do something different or leave things with the private sector if that is what is best for them. One state that screws things up or is mired in graft and corruption won't be imposing that screw up and graft/corruption on everybody else.

But again, the individual citizen has a much more manageable problem to rally objections to misconduct in his/her state and deal with it. Or if the rules, reg, etc. in one state are not to his/her liking, he/she can move to a different state without giving up his/her benefits of citizenship in the USA. But if the federal government becomes intolerable, then the citizen has nowhere to go without giving up his/her country.

Even assuming you are correct (and I think that, in large part, you are not; while people will have some differences from state to state, I think there are more differences between people living in the city vs the country, different socio-economic statuses, etc.), why the states as they are in particular? There are differences between people from different parts of the same state; why not get rid of the states and use cities or counties, or create smaller states, which will give smaller, more local governments, if we're rewriting the constitution anyway? An individual would have a much easier time moving to a different county than a different state, and there would be more options with more areas to choose from that have differing rules. That's what I'm asking. What is it about the states as they stand, in particular, that makes them optimal? Is there anything, or is it just because that's what we are all used to?

So where do you think I am wrong?

If the people of the state want to dismantle or reorganize their state, so be it. I am advocating a return to original intent of the Constitution and certainly each state was permitted to organize itself pretty much as it wanted to back then. Don't hold your breath for that to happen though. Most of the state and county and incorporated community structures are as they are because they have proved their worth for efficient and effective government and the people like it that way. And the people should decide in such matters. Not the federal government.

Look at a U.S. map and the Oklahoma Panhandle. A narrow, sparsely populated strip of land that looks like it belongs much more logically to Texas or Kansas. Both Texas and Kansas would probably annex that strip of land if the folks who lived on it petitioned for that and chances are the rest of Oklahoma would agree. Why hasn't it happened? Because the people who live there want to be Oklahomans and not Texans or Kansans. And what possible difference could that make to anybody else?

Again instead of focusing on why. . . .focus on what is liberty? And how much can government require of the people before they no longer have the liberty to live their lives as they choose to live them?

 

[Montrovant]

I have a quick question. If we're talking about rewriting the Constitution, why do you consider the separation of the states important? How is the will of the people better served by having representation at the state level separate from the federal level, particularly in this connected, digital age? If scale is the answer (each individual is better able to enjoy his/her freedom at a smaller scale) why stop at the current states? Why not, for example, make each county its own state? We could have the 500 rather than 50 states of the United States.

Other than tradition, I've often wondered why people seem to find the states, as they stand, to be so important. State government is just as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, and modern travel and communications make the differences of distance far less an issue than they were in the past. If nothing else, why not remake state borders so they are less arbitrary?

It should be up to the people of the states involved to make any changes to state borders.

As for state government being as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, yes it is. But as long as the federal government exercises its proper authority to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other, such corruption and abuse is limited to that state instead of the whole country. The people of that state can either choose to deal with it and correct it or move elsewhere without giving up their country. In my opinion, when the people are more dependent on their state instead of the federal government for good government, they are far more likely to demand and get good state government.

But when the federal government oversteps its authority with abuse and corruption, we have nowhere to go other than to give up our country. And it is far more difficult for any given area to have much influence in that regard or be able to focus on the particular needs of their own state.

The smaller and more local government is, the better that government is likely to be.

My point is based in the hypothetical we're involved in here. If we're to rewrite the constitution, what reason would there be to maintain the states as they currently exist? Certainly some of the borders seem arbitrary and silly, if nothing else. But why stop at the states? Why not give each county the same authorities and responsibilities of the states? If smaller and more local government is better, why not focus power on as small a scale as feasible?

I'm not advocating actually removing or changing the states (although I really do think more regular borders might be a good idea ), I'm just wondering why, if we're discussing a complete rewrite of the rules of the nation, the states as they currently stand should be retained. Is it simply tradition; we're used to it that way? That's a perfectly valid reason, but sometimes people who are particularly vehement states rights advocates give the impression it's more than that, and I thought you might have another reason.

Again the best argument to retain the states as they are or as they choose to be is because Texans are largely different from most Californians. People who choose to live in New York enjoy a different culture than those who live in Montana. A heavily industrial state like Pennsylvania will want a somewhat different emphasis in government than a largely rural state like North Dakota.

If Massachusetts wants a universal healthcare plan, and its people are okay with that, it will be its own little laboratory and other states can choose to copy what Massachusetts does or do something different or leave things with the private sector if that is what is best for them. One state that screws things up or is mired in graft and corruption won't be imposing that screw up and graft/corruption on everybody else.

But again, the individual citizen has a much more manageable problem to rally objections to misconduct in his/her state and deal with it. Or if the rules, reg, etc. in one state are not to his/her liking, he/she can move to a different state without giving up his/her benefits of citizenship in the USA. But if the federal government becomes intolerable, then the citizen has nowhere to go without giving up his/her country.

Even assuming you are correct (and I think that, in large part, you are not; while people will have some differences from state to state, I think there are more differences between people living in the city vs the country, different socio-economic statuses, etc.), why the states as they are in particular? There are differences between people from different parts of the same state; why not get rid of the states and use cities or counties, or create smaller states, which will give smaller, more local governments, if we're rewriting the constitution anyway? An individual would have a much easier time moving to a different county than a different state, and there would be more options with more areas to choose from that have differing rules. That's what I'm asking. What is it about the states as they stand, in particular, that makes them optimal? Is there anything, or is it just because that's what we are all used to?

If the people of the country want to dismantle their state, so be it. I am advocating a return to original intent of the Constitution and certainly each state was permitted to organize itself pretty much as it wanted to back then. Don't hold your breath for that to happen though.

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath for a rewriting of the constitution, either. We're just discussing a 'what if' kind of thing here.

 

[Foxfyre]

It should be up to the people of the states involved to make any changes to state borders.

As for state government being as subject to corruption and abuse as federal government, yes it is. But as long as the federal government exercises its proper authority to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other, such corruption and abuse is limited to that state instead of the whole country. The people of that state can either choose to deal with it and correct it or move elsewhere without giving up their country. In my opinion, when the people are more dependent on their state instead of the federal government for good government, they are far more likely to demand and get good state government.

But when the federal government oversteps its authority with abuse and corruption, we have nowhere to go other than to give up our country. And it is far more difficult for any given area to have much influence in that regard or be able to focus on the particular needs of their own state.

The smaller and more local government is, the better that government is likely to be.

My point is based in the hypothetical we're involved in here. If we're to rewrite the constitution, what reason would there be to maintain the states as they currently exist? Certainly some of the borders seem arbitrary and silly, if nothing else. But why stop at the states? Why not give each county the same authorities and responsibilities of the states? If smaller and more local government is better, why not focus power on as small a scale as feasible?

I'm not advocating actually removing or changing the states (although I really do think more regular borders might be a good idea ), I'm just wondering why, if we're discussing a complete rewrite of the rules of the nation, the states as they currently stand should be retained. Is it simply tradition; we're used to it that way? That's a perfectly valid reason, but sometimes people who are particularly vehement states rights advocates give the impression it's more than that, and I thought you might have another reason.

Again the best argument to retain the states as they are or as they choose to be is because Texans are largely different from most Californians. People who choose to live in New York enjoy a different culture than those who live in Montana. A heavily industrial state like Pennsylvania will want a somewhat different emphasis in government than a largely rural state like North Dakota.

If Massachusetts wants a universal healthcare plan, and its people are okay with that, it will be its own little laboratory and other states can choose to copy what Massachusetts does or do something different or leave things with the private sector if that is what is best for them. One state that screws things up or is mired in graft and corruption won't be imposing that screw up and graft/corruption on everybody else.

But again, the individual citizen has a much more manageable problem to rally objections to misconduct in his/her state and deal with it. Or if the rules, reg, etc. in one state are not to his/her liking, he/she can move to a different state without giving up his/her benefits of citizenship in the USA. But if the federal government becomes intolerable, then the citizen has nowhere to go without giving up his/her country.

Even assuming you are correct (and I think that, in large part, you are not; while people will have some differences from state to state, I think there are more differences between people living in the city vs the country, different socio-economic statuses, etc.), why the states as they are in particular? There are differences between people from different parts of the same state; why not get rid of the states and use cities or counties, or create smaller states, which will give smaller, more local governments, if we're rewriting the constitution anyway? An individual would have a much easier time moving to a different county than a different state, and there would be more options with more areas to choose from that have differing rules. That's what I'm asking. What is it about the states as they stand, in particular, that makes them optimal? Is there anything, or is it just because that's what we are all used to?

If the people of the country want to dismantle their state, so be it. I am advocating a return to original intent of the Constitution and certainly each state was permitted to organize itself pretty much as it wanted to back then. Don't hold your breath for that to happen though.

Well, I'm not going to hold my breath for a rewriting of the constitution, either. We're just discussing a 'what if' kind of thing here.

That was the whole point after all. Somebody earlier today said that suggesting rewriting the Constitution was the heighth of arrogance or something like that. But I sure don't see any harm in hypothetically exploring ways to make it more clear in intent, deal with modern phenomenon that was not an issue when the original Constitution was written, and clean up and clearly define those phrases that have been so controversial between various factions in the country such as what 'arms' does the Second Amendment protect or what specifically is meant by the term 'general welfare'.

And we need to deal with whether the USA will retain its uncommon concept of Jus soli in which those born on U.S. soil receive automatic citizenship. Most nations of the world grant automatic citizenship on a jus sanguinis or 'right of blood' basis in which one or both parents must be a citizen of the country. And while I rarely ever suggest we copy other countries, this is one area I think we need to consider it.

 

[Olde Europe]

The problem is much broader than minimum wage laws, which are currently of virtually no consequence. It has more to do with the overall regulatory barriers that prevent people from taking care of business. The irony here is that these regulations are usually passed in the name of making society safer. But people will do what they need and want to do, despite regulations. And when they do they'll do so as criminals, and expose themselves to all the additional dangers that entails.

That's nonsense, from start to finish. Thought through to its logical ends, you'd have to abolish criminal law altogether, for people "do what they need and want to do", and the real ill is that they're doing it "as criminals".

Really? You think that greed and exploitation need not be reigned in? You'd be going back a century, when folks - slaving away locked into their factory - burned by the hundreds. If you want that, just say so. The consequence, however, would be that there's not even a hint of hope for compromise for the two of us. Nope, it's not the minimum wage legislation that creates exploitative capitalism. Rather, having mostly emasculated unions, that legislation reigns it in, somewhat.

To me, the phrase means something along the lines of "the private sector", but not limited to economic concerns. It means society sans government, people interacting without the benefit of coercive authority.

You obviously forget that "We the People" in the Constitution are exactly those who created this government for their benefit, security, and happiness. People interacting in a society without government you may behold in Somalia.

My observation is that "we the people" is most commonly used by modern liberals as an appeal to the primacy of majority rule, but I think that misses the point.

If anyone does that (I have not once encountered a mention of this phrase in this sense), they're missing the point indeed, for how this popular will is expressed and then channelled into collective, public action, pertains to a later step.

I find it almost funny how the Founders, having set up a representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy modelled after the Swiss one, for instance), for they deeply distrusted the wisdom of the Great Unwashed, are now are now claimed as supporters of Tea-Party, grass-roots, self-organising communities, along with the overarching Constitutional objective of unleashing the robber barons on the country. As we've seen in Foxfyre's advocacy, she has no objections to lavish welfare going to the richest, most powerful corporations, but resents like hell every dime going to the poor. Partly objecting, you'd rather dismantle Federal minimum wage legislation along with workplace safety regulations etc. so that the owners can, as you put it, tak "care of business". That's where you degrade We the People to a status of mere (corporate) tools, and I find it hard to think of a more thorough rejection of the Founders aims (General Welfare, Pursuit of Happiness) as well as every last bit of humanitarian objectives that still persist despite the corporate onslaught. Liberty is not meant to be the right to choose the bridge under which to spend the night, you know?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem is much broader than minimum wage laws, which are currently of virtually no consequence. It has more to do with the overall regulatory barriers that prevent people from taking care of business. The irony here is that these regulations are usually passed in the name of making society safer. But people will do what they need and want to do, despite regulations. And when they do they'll do so as criminals, and expose themselves to all the additional dangers that entails.

That's nonsense, from start to finish. Thought through to its logical ends, you'd have to abolish criminal law altogether, for people "do what they need and want to do", and the real ill is that they're doing it "as criminals".

Really? You think that greed and exploitation need not be reigned in? You'd be going back a century, when folks - slaving away locked into their factory - burned by the hundreds. If you want that, just say so. The consequence, however, would be that there's not even a hint of hope for compromise for the two of us. Nope, it's not the minimum wage legislation that creates exploitative capitalism. Rather, having mostly emasculated unions, that legislation reigns it in, somewhat.

To me, the phrase means something along the lines of "the private sector", but not limited to economic concerns. It means society sans government, people interacting without the benefit of coercive authority.

You obviously forget that "We the People" in the Constitution are exactly those who created this government for their benefit, security, and happiness. People interacting in a society without government you may behold in Somalia.

My observation is that "we the people" is most commonly used by modern liberals as an appeal to the primacy of majority rule, but I think that misses the point.

If anyone does that (I have not once encountered a mention of this phrase in this sense), they're missing the point indeed, for how this popular will is expressed and then channelled into collective, public action, pertains to a later step.

I find it almost funny how the Founders, having set up a representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy modelled after the Swiss one, for instance), for they deeply distrusted the wisdom of the Great Unwashed, are now are now claimed as supporters of Tea-Party, grass-roots, self-organising communities, along with the overarching Constitutional objective of unleashing the robber barons on the country. As we've seen in Foxfyre's advocacy, she has no objections to lavish welfare going to the richest, most powerful corporations, but resents like hell every dime going to the poor. Partly objecting, you'd rather dismantle Federal minimum wage legislation along with workplace safety regulations etc. so that the owners can, as you put it, tak "care of business". That's where you degrade We the People to a status of mere (corporate) tools, and I find it hard to think of a more thorough rejection of the Founders aims (General Welfare, Pursuit of Happiness) as well as every last bit of humanitarian objectives that still persist despite the corporate onslaught. Liberty is not meant to be the right to choose the bridge under which to spend the night, you know?

OE, if you could find a single line of mine that even hints that I support welfare going to anybody at the federal level or a single line of mine that I resent 'every dime going to the poor', I would acknowledge that I said that. But you won't be able to find it and I do insist that you acknowledge that you misrepresented my point of view in a way unacceptable to the CDZ.

 

[Olde Europe]

OE, if you could find a single line of mine that even hints that I support welfare going to anybody at the federal level or a single line of mine that I resent 'every dime going to the poor', I would acknowledge that I said that. But you won't be able to find it and I do insist that you acknowledge that you misrepresented my point of view in a way unacceptable to the CDZ.

Here:

Re the welfare programs on your first list, I would prohibit the federal government from getting involved in each and every one.

Yeah, I admit I should have made explicit that I meant "every federal dime." My apologies for the sloppy expression.

 

[Foxfyre]

OE, if you could find a single line of mine that even hints that I support welfare going to anybody at the federal level or a single line of mine that I resent 'every dime going to the poor', I would acknowledge that I said that. But you won't be able to find it and I do insist that you acknowledge that you misrepresented my point of view in a way unacceptable to the CDZ.

Here:

Re the welfare programs on your first list, I would prohibit the federal government from getting involved in each and every one.

Yeah, I admit I should have made explicit that I meant "every federal dime." My apologies for the sloppy expression.

Even there it mischaracterizes what I said when you limit my objections to benefits to the 'poor'. Or suggest that I am okay with 'welfare to the rich.' I am clearly on record that a moral society does take care of those who cannot help themselves or who need a hand up.

My argument, however, is authority must not be given to the federal government to provide any kind of benefit targeted for the poor, targeted for the rich, or targeted for any other special interest. And I have provided my rationale for why.

 

[dblack]

The problem is much broader than minimum wage laws, which are currently of virtually no consequence. It has more to do with the overall regulatory barriers that prevent people from taking care of business. The irony here is that these regulations are usually passed in the name of making society safer. But people will do what they need and want to do, despite regulations. And when they do they'll do so as criminals, and expose themselves to all the additional dangers that entails.

That's nonsense, from start to finish. Thought through to its logical ends, you'd have to abolish criminal law altogether, for people "do what they need and want to do", and the real ill is that they're doing it "as criminals".

You'd have to think it through pretty haphazardly to reach those ends. I'm not claiming laws should be abolished because people will break them. I'm saying that when we criminalize activities that aren't really crimes, when we outlaw activities that aren't actually harming anyone, we still get real crime. We get an underclass of people who do their best to survive despite the naive presumptions of "reformers" who think they can just outlaw poverty and it will go away. And they're forced to live their lives off the books, as defacto criminals, adding injury to the insult of being born into poverty.

Really? You think that greed and exploitation need not be reigned in? You'd be going back a century, when folks - slaving away locked into their factory - burned by the hundreds. If you want that, just say so.

If I wanted to say that I would. But I didn't. I'm saying your approach actually fuels greed and exploitation, making matters worse by encouraging collusion between private greed and coercive law.

To me, the phrase means something along the lines of "the private sector", but not limited to economic concerns. It means society sans government, people interacting without the benefit of coercive authority.

You obviously forget that "We the People" in the Constitution are exactly those who created this government for their benefit, security, and happiness. People interacting in a society without government you may behold in Somalia.

Skip the Somalia nonsense. Libertarianism isn't anarchy. And neither is people interacting in society without government. It might shock you to consider, but it's true. Most of us, most of time, get along just fine without government intervention. For those times when we can't resolve our differences peacefully we DO need government, but those times are very much the exception.

Strawman dismissed, what I meant by suggesting "We the People" refers to "society sans government" is that government is not the same thing as society, and I think that's the significance of the phrase as used in the Constitution. It's to make it clear that the government is a tool that is created by, and operates at, the will of the people - not the other way around.

My observation is that "we the people" is most commonly used by modern liberals as an appeal to the primacy of majority rule, but I think that misses the point.

If anyone does that (I have not once encountered a mention of this phrase in this sense), they're missing the point indeed, for how this popular will is expressed and then channelled into collective, public action, pertains to a later step.

Perhaps you're just not sensitive to it. I'll be sure to point it out for you the next time I see it. Happens all the time on USMB.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . . .Libertarianism isn't anarchy. And neither is people interacting in society without government. It might shock you to consider, but it's true. Most of us, most of time, get along just fine without government intervention. For those times when we can't resolve our differences peacefully we DO need government, but those times are very much the exception. . . .

I agree there are proper roles for government at all levels and I have argued that in some detail.

But. . . .

It is important that the federal government needs to be involved in very specialized and specific areas and not in all areas in which it is appropriate for government to be involved. When the state or local government can handle necessary government functions, the federal government should not be involved.

 

[Olde Europe]

You'd have to think it through pretty haphazardly to reach those ends. I'm not claiming laws should be abolished because people will break them. I'm saying that when we criminalize activities that aren't really crimes

You get to define what is a "real crime"? I thought that was the prerogative of the legislature?

Can you point me to the statute that makes accepting a job offering that pays less than minimum wage a crime? Thanks in advance.

And yes, your proposal would confine even more Americans to poverty and destitution, even more children growing up experiencing hunger. In the richest country (of relevant size) on earth, I find that is patently insane.

If I wanted to say that I would. But I didn't. I'm saying your approach actually fuels greed and exploitation, making matters worse by encouraging collusion between private greed and coercive law.

I am saying you have not a lick of hope to demonstrate how minimum wage legislation "fuels greed" and encourages "collusion between private greed and coercive law." You merely made that up.

Skip the Somalia nonsense. Libertarianism isn't anarchy. And neither is people interacting in society without government. It might shock you to consider, but it's true. Most of us, most of time, get along just fine without government intervention. For those times when we can't resolve our differences peacefully we DO need government, but those times are very much the exception.

Strawman dismissed, what I meant by suggesting "We the People" refers to "society sans government" is that government is not the same thing as society, and I think that's the significance of the phrase as used in the Constitution. It's to make it clear that the government is a tool that is created by, and operates at, the will of the people - not the other way around.

For pity's sake! Starting from societal interactions whilst government enforces its rules, you declare that people get along without government. If I point out how people get along without government you dismiss it as straw man. I find, you've yet to think this one through properly.

And no, government does not operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have no taxes (just to name one issue). Moreover, it shouldn't operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have the most prevalent bigotries, the most widespread racism directly translated into government action. That would be yet another nightmare of monumental proportions.

 

[Foxfyre]

In every election cycle, there are at least two or three initiatives on the ballot in which the people vote for how their taxes will be used, i.e. for new books for the public libraries or a new public library, or a new senior citizen center, or a new school, etc. etc. etc. And most of those initiative pass.

The idea that if government did not forcibly extract taxes from the people, that the people wouldn't agree to any taxes just doesn't wash on the face of it.

I still don't see how an argument can be made that those in government will do things better than the people would choose to do on their own. Does that mean that government functions are not needed? Not in the least.

This thread from the beginning was not an argument for no government. It was intended to focus on what authority the people should assign to the government or whether the people or the government should dictate what authority the government will have.

 

[dblack]

You'd have to think it through pretty haphazardly to reach those ends. I'm not claiming laws should be abolished because people will break them. I'm saying that when we criminalize activities that aren't really crimes

You get to define what is a "real crime"? I thought that was the prerogative of the legislature?

That's part of the point of calling for a new constitution. They're doing it wrong.

And no, government does not operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have no taxes (just to name one issue). Moreover, it shouldn't operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have the most prevalent bigotries, the most widespread racism directly translated into government action. That would be yet another nightmare of monumental proportions.

Right. I think this nails the core difference in our ideologies. Government should serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

 

[Foxfyre]

. . .And no, government does not operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have no taxes (just to name one issue). Moreover, it shouldn't operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have the most prevalent bigotries, the most widespread racism directly translated into government action. That would be yet another nightmare of monumental proportions.

Your statement here seems to say that the people are more likely to be bigoted and racist than are those they elect to government. Can you provide a rationale for how that would be so?

 

[Derideo_Te]

You'd have to think it through pretty haphazardly to reach those ends. I'm not claiming laws should be abolished because people will break them. I'm saying that when we criminalize activities that aren't really crimes

You get to define what is a "real crime"? I thought that was the prerogative of the legislature?

That's part of the point of calling for a new constitution. They're doing it wrong.

And no, government does not operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have no taxes (just to name one issue). Moreover, it shouldn't operate at the will of the people, for if it did, we'd have the most prevalent bigotries, the most widespread racism directly translated into government action. That would be yet another nightmare of monumental proportions.

Right. I think this nails the core difference in our ideologies. Government should serve the will of the people, not the other way around.

None of the people are "serving the will" of the government except perhaps those gainfully employed by the government or serving in the armed forces.

The government is serving the will of the Libertarian Koch bros and the corporate special interests.