The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
In addition, the court cut back agency authority in general invoking the so-called "major questions" doctrine -- a ruling that will impact the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety.
The conversation continues...At what point do we accept that the very foundation of the government is broken, and needs to be replaced? We have access to have an unprecedented ability to have a...
The conversation continues...At what point do we accept that the very foundation of the government is broken, and needs to be replaced?
We have access to have an unprecedented ability to have a direct democracy...if not at the federal level, certainly in a 'constitutional convention' way.
A soviet model (local councils forming a bottom-up representation) would serve well, and eliminating the intermediary, mostly arbitrary, state boundries would serve everyone well.
Let the divide be at the local level and a federal level. Would solve many problems, and local levels would have an easier time clustering resources in a way that makes sense.
I think that there's various levels to organize society on, but that local straight to Federal is a hard jump. How many local groups would fall within the water supply of the Colorado River, and...
I think that there's various levels to organize society on, but that local straight to Federal is a hard jump. How many local groups would fall within the water supply of the Colorado River, and how would those water rights be negotiated? The states involved are Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada. It's already difficult to manage negotiations just with them.
Indeed. I think that local groups will also be selfish by optimizing locally for themselves at the expense of others. Sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. Sometimes...
Indeed. I think that local groups will also be selfish by optimizing locally for themselves at the expense of others. Sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. Sometimes local groups must be sacrificed.
For example, many farming communities in the arid American west frankly shouldn't be allowed to exist. The Colorado River is declining. Groundwater supplies are depleting.
Local control of housing supply has also shown an immense level of immediate personal self-interest. The people in a town vote their own current interests. This is reasonable. They like things to...
Local control of housing supply has also shown an immense level of immediate personal self-interest. The people in a town vote their own current interests. This is reasonable. They like things to stay as they have been. This is understandable. They control local zoning so that new construction is minimal. This is iffy. Housing costs go through the roof since other things aren't holding still. This is awful for everyone but the people who already own homes. There's a reason why California is pushing back on complete local control of housing development.
Then have the new people live somewhere else? The beauty of a just society with local empowerment is that it means if a large enough homeless population gathers together, they become a locality,...
They control local zoning so that new construction is minimal. This is iffy. Housing costs go through the roof since other things aren't holding still. This is awful for everyone but the people who already own homes.
Then have the new people live somewhere else? The beauty of a just society with local empowerment is that it means if a large enough homeless population gathers together, they become a locality, and can just vote to have that land themselves.
Making it difficult to enforce property law is also a feature.
That sounds outright like a tyranny of the majority, though. As long as the old guard outnumber the new people in a given space, they can shut everyone else out. Or homeless can move in en masse,...
That sounds outright like a tyranny of the majority, though. As long as the old guard outnumber the new people in a given space, they can shut everyone else out. Or homeless can move in en masse, and then it's their way. It seems very absolute either way, and in neither case looks at a larger context than the individual locality. It seems like if anyone in an area can vote there, there would be extremely onerous requirements to "live" there in order to maintain homogeneity.
Edit: I remembered something else that your proposal reminded me of: the rotten boroughs in the UK prior to the reform of the house of commons. Unless the unit of a locality is population-locked, representation would be even less equal than we already have it. (Please note, I'd be perfectly happy to eliminate the Senate, I'm not backing the bicameral legislature here.)
That's what I'd call: The nitty gritty details that would probably best be sorted out in a democratic fashion. I'd advocate for some kind of fixed-ratio for representation, somewhere on the order...
Unless the unit of a locality is population-locked, representation would be even less equal than we already have it.
That's what I'd call: The nitty gritty details that would probably best be sorted out in a democratic fashion. I'd advocate for some kind of fixed-ratio for representation, somewhere on the order of 10,000 or less people per representative.
See, this is where I disagree. Either the problem you are having can be solved locally, or you can move so you're in different locality. Making it harder to impose your will, especially a...
Indeed. I think that local groups will also be selfish by optimizing locally for themselves at the expense of others. Sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. Sometimes local groups must be sacrificed.
See, this is where I disagree. Either the problem you are having can be solved locally, or you can move so you're in different locality.
Making it harder to impose your will, especially a disruptive one, on another community is a net win. If housing is expensive in your town, empower your town to fix it. Don't rely on some other town forcing a third town to fix it for you. Or if you don't want to fix it, move to where it isn't a problem.
I think what I mean by that, is that beyond setting rules for everyone, to insure freedom and justice, there isn't a formal structure that hardcodes various locales together. The town becomes the...
I think what I mean by that, is that beyond setting rules for everyone, to insure freedom and justice, there isn't a formal structure that hardcodes various locales together. The town becomes the primary unit of governance, and thus avoids the "2 Senators from Wyoming" problem. I am a firm believer that some sort of anarchocommunist model is the best path forward.
The locales could then voluntarily associate to form larger groups that are more freeform than the current state boundaries. The case you describe could be a domain-specific grouping like 'Colorodo River Basin Communities', where the affected communities band together in a way that makes the most sense for them, for the things that matter.
I can't think of a single issue anywhere I have lived that was best served by the state and not federal laws and affected locales.
I live in California, and regularly find that state or state-scale law better serves my interests better than city or federal, though some of that may be because said laws are culturally assumed...
I live in California, and regularly find that state or state-scale law better serves my interests better than city or federal, though some of that may be because said laws are culturally assumed to be the responsibility of the states and thus aren't duplicated at a federal or city/county level. A few examples:
Regulations regarding housing and construction, including limitations on local ability to block new construction. Various pro-worker employment laws including mandated PTO based on hours worked as an employee. Water use restrictions. Environmental conservation efforts. Anti-trust regulations. An existing lower boundary on corporate taxes for anyone doing business in the state regardless of their location of incorporation. A variety of election laws. Gun control laws. Various taxes to disincentivize unhealthy behavior.
I don't dispute that currently Cali is doing better than most. I'd say that many/most of these would trickle their way up/down as appropriate if people were given more opportunity for...
I don't dispute that currently Cali is doing better than most.
I'd say that many/most of these would trickle their way up/down as appropriate if people were given more opportunity for self-governance.
Incidentally, it would be much harder to create megaconglomerates because with more empowered smaller governance, you've increased the complexity of maintaining a company across hundreds of them.
In our modern age, it is not a lack of resources preventing us from solving problems, merely a lack of creativity and will. If I inspire someone better suited to fixing said holes or taking...
In our modern age, it is not a lack of resources preventing us from solving problems, merely a lack of creativity and will.
If I inspire someone better suited to fixing said holes or taking action, I've made the world a slightly better place (I hope).
I'm reminded of what Tocqueville wrote (back in the 1830's) about Americans' tendency to form associations: This doesn't sound much like modern day America, does it? The enthusiasm about...
The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.
Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of a great example, they associate. Everywhere that, at the head of a new undertaking, you see the government in France and a great lord in England, count on it that you will perceive an association in the United States.
In America I encountered sorts of associations of which, I confess, I had no idea, and I often admired the infinite art with which the inhabitants of the United States managed to fix a common goal to the efforts of many men and to get them to advance to it freely.
This doesn't sound much like modern day America, does it? The enthusiasm about organizing seems mostly gone. And if people mostly don't want to participate in this sort of thing, how could all these councils work?
The conversation continues...At what point do we accept that the very foundation of the government is broken, and needs to be replaced?
We have access to have an unprecedented ability to have a direct democracy...if not at the federal level, certainly in a 'constitutional convention' way.
A soviet model (local councils forming a bottom-up representation) would serve well, and eliminating the intermediary, mostly arbitrary, state boundries would serve everyone well.
Let the divide be at the local level and a federal level. Would solve many problems, and local levels would have an easier time clustering resources in a way that makes sense.
I think that there's various levels to organize society on, but that local straight to Federal is a hard jump. How many local groups would fall within the water supply of the Colorado River, and how would those water rights be negotiated? The states involved are Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada. It's already difficult to manage negotiations just with them.
Indeed. I think that local groups will also be selfish by optimizing locally for themselves at the expense of others. Sometimes the needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few. Sometimes local groups must be sacrificed.
For example, many farming communities in the arid American west frankly shouldn't be allowed to exist. The Colorado River is declining. Groundwater supplies are depleting.
Local control of housing supply has also shown an immense level of immediate personal self-interest. The people in a town vote their own current interests. This is reasonable. They like things to stay as they have been. This is understandable. They control local zoning so that new construction is minimal. This is iffy. Housing costs go through the roof since other things aren't holding still. This is awful for everyone but the people who already own homes. There's a reason why California is pushing back on complete local control of housing development.
Then have the new people live somewhere else? The beauty of a just society with local empowerment is that it means if a large enough homeless population gathers together, they become a locality, and can just vote to have that land themselves.
Making it difficult to enforce property law is also a feature.
That sounds outright like a tyranny of the majority, though. As long as the old guard outnumber the new people in a given space, they can shut everyone else out. Or homeless can move in en masse, and then it's their way. It seems very absolute either way, and in neither case looks at a larger context than the individual locality. It seems like if anyone in an area can vote there, there would be extremely onerous requirements to "live" there in order to maintain homogeneity.
Edit: I remembered something else that your proposal reminded me of: the rotten boroughs in the UK prior to the reform of the house of commons. Unless the unit of a locality is population-locked, representation would be even less equal than we already have it. (Please note, I'd be perfectly happy to eliminate the Senate, I'm not backing the bicameral legislature here.)
That's what I'd call: The nitty gritty details that would probably best be sorted out in a democratic fashion. I'd advocate for some kind of fixed-ratio for representation, somewhere on the order of 10,000 or less people per representative.
See, this is where I disagree. Either the problem you are having can be solved locally, or you can move so you're in different locality.
Making it harder to impose your will, especially a disruptive one, on another community is a net win. If housing is expensive in your town, empower your town to fix it. Don't rely on some other town forcing a third town to fix it for you. Or if you don't want to fix it, move to where it isn't a problem.
I think what I mean by that, is that beyond setting rules for everyone, to insure freedom and justice, there isn't a formal structure that hardcodes various locales together. The town becomes the primary unit of governance, and thus avoids the "2 Senators from Wyoming" problem. I am a firm believer that some sort of anarchocommunist model is the best path forward.
The locales could then voluntarily associate to form larger groups that are more freeform than the current state boundaries. The case you describe could be a domain-specific grouping like 'Colorodo River Basin Communities', where the affected communities band together in a way that makes the most sense for them, for the things that matter.
I can't think of a single issue anywhere I have lived that was best served by the state and not federal laws and affected locales.
I live in California, and regularly find that state or state-scale law better serves my interests better than city or federal, though some of that may be because said laws are culturally assumed to be the responsibility of the states and thus aren't duplicated at a federal or city/county level. A few examples:
Regulations regarding housing and construction, including limitations on local ability to block new construction. Various pro-worker employment laws including mandated PTO based on hours worked as an employee. Water use restrictions. Environmental conservation efforts. Anti-trust regulations. An existing lower boundary on corporate taxes for anyone doing business in the state regardless of their location of incorporation. A variety of election laws. Gun control laws. Various taxes to disincentivize unhealthy behavior.
I don't dispute that currently Cali is doing better than most.
I'd say that many/most of these would trickle their way up/down as appropriate if people were given more opportunity for self-governance.
Incidentally, it would be much harder to create megaconglomerates because with more empowered smaller governance, you've increased the complexity of maintaining a company across hundreds of them.
In our modern age, it is not a lack of resources preventing us from solving problems, merely a lack of creativity and will.
If I inspire someone better suited to fixing said holes or taking action, I've made the world a slightly better place (I hope).
I'm reminded of what Tocqueville wrote (back in the 1830's) about Americans' tendency to form associations:
This doesn't sound much like modern day America, does it? The enthusiasm about organizing seems mostly gone. And if people mostly don't want to participate in this sort of thing, how could all these councils work?
Keeping major differences to between states makes it much easier to go places.