View Single Post
Old 06-05-2019, 02:18 PM
k9bfriender is online now
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,532
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Thatís San Franciscoís problem. Not Rhode Islandís. At least with regards to the national level. At the state level, California has a state government. How when it has no sovereignty is still a puzzle.
Not really. Anyone that approaches this in good faith is not confused.
But it exists and San Francisco and those who have differences with San Francisco can deal with it in Sacramento.

Within San Francisco you have different neighborhoods with different priorities. They take issues up with city government. They donít go to Washington D.C. because they want a new stop sign or more needle and poop sweepers. They handle it or not locally. With local government and local powers.
The points was to refute the argument that this is to make sure that the "little people" get represented.

Since you acknowledge that it has nothing to do with making sure that rural interests are assured, we can move on.
What you attempt to trivialize by labeling it Ďbanalitiesí is, in reality, the way the political and social world works. History and past agreements matter. If boundaries of territory arenít respected because of treaty and law then that only leaves the rule of force.
Treaty and law are upheld by the use of force.

Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
That's very far from compelling logic, even for the internet. By the same logic the United States does not communicate, I've never heard it say a word either. So why should it have any influence on overall world policies out of proportion to its population as a % of the world total? Because it's a sovereign entity, which by its own political process decides what limited portions of that sovereignty it's willing to surrender to 'higher' international bodies (there are some cases under various treaty agreements).
That's actually because we have a military that can go around and kick people's ass. We do not give up any sovereignty to anyone at all. We don't have to.

Tell that to a country like Iraq, how much sovereignty do they have? How much sovereignty did it decide to surrender by its own political process

If your argument is that the states should arm themselves and war amongst each other, then it is relevant, but a bad, very bad idea.
The states as sovereign entities agreed to surrender a good deal of their power to the new federal govt to form the Union, but not all of them, nor did they agree to no longer be sovereign entities. And practically speaking you have to live within that agreement, or get around it under it's own terms but without word games. That's the practical reality which isn't even really affected necessarily by whether your logic is strong, or as lame at it just was.
The word game that is being played is to say that states have sovereignty under one definition, and then claim they have the powers of a sovereign under another.
The further ridiculousness of this conversation being, that if Democrats (the 'reformers' seeking their 'rightful' political domination at all cost) got the kind of majorities they need to pass constitutional amendments downgrading the Senate's power (which is the marginally realistic path rather than 100% state govt agreement to have their Senate representation reduced, which would literally never happen) would depend on Democratic politicians first attaining Senate and state legislature 2/3's and 3/4's majorities then downgrading their *own* personal power, which would also not happen when push came to shove.
Why would it have to be democrats? Couldn't that be a representative of any group who wishes to live up to the ideals of democracy? Why are you insistent that only democrats are willing to fight for the right of self governance? You may be right, but I had a bit more faith in the republican party than that.

Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Yes there has. History matters. Thatís why France has a permanent spot on the UN Security Council and every other country with 4 exceptions does not.
When the UN has any say in how France is run, then your analogy would be relevant.
History matters. Thatís why Canada has all that land and so little people. Howís that fair? Letís split the worldís land up proportionately.
Ummm, that is irrelevant to proportional representation. Once again, it seems you have to be reminded that land is not people.
Look up the EU. If it doesnít collapse at some point they will want more central power. You think they will get buy in from the smaller countries if no concessions are made? You think the smaller countries are going to be thrilled once the deal is made Germany reneges?
Yeah, I think that smaller countries would like to be a part of the economic system of the EU, as well as be protected by a coalition of forces. Lithuania wouldn't hold out to have the same vote as Germany, and Germany wouldn't allow them to have a vote equal to themselves.

If 240 years after lithuania joins, the deal needs to be renegotiated, then the people who made the deal will be dead, not thrilled.