View Single Post
  #66  
Old 06-03-2019, 01:26 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But as you know, the formation of this country was unique in that you had thirteen states who at the time had fully sovereign powers. They agreed to unite in a country that was more that the loose association under the Articles of Confederation, but still far different than most countries.

They did not surrender all sovereignty. The only surrendered those powers that are listed in the Constitution, and even those powers were to be voted upon in a manner that did not give a one-person, one-vote across the states. The smaller states wisely saw how they would be rendered irrelevant by such a scheme.

I don't think it is proper to say that the way our country is set up is unfair when it was done this way by the agreement of all of the states and concessions were made to the smaller ones so that we could even have this union in the first place.

So, how in your mind is it now far and just to insist on a pure one-person one-vote national compact where the larger states can run roughshod over the smaller states? The very thing that was bargained for?
The same line of thinking also applies to intrinsic individual rights. Those have no protection in an unconstrained democracy. What’s really funny though is the notion that the abstract political entity labeled “nation” is a construct that makes perfect sense yet an abstract political entity labeled “state” does not. I honestly don’t see how one can reconcile or promote those two contradictory ideas.

Last edited by octopus; 06-03-2019 at 01:27 AM.