COVID-19: from the restaurant scene March 2020

originally posted by BJ:

My deal is actually less along the lines of red/blue. I just think we've reached a point of system complexity and size that makes effective governance impossible...
Click to expand...

The system complexity of our globalized world is a strong argument for government at higher levels (although not necessarily *bigger* government, but maybe so in certain circumstances). And while some may fear world government, (flexible) multi-level government is really the key, to better facilitate coordination and cooperation.

As far as capture, that happens to any institutional arrangement and is a strong argument for why we shouldn't be afraid to innovate on documents that were written 200+ years ago when the world was full of farmers. But that's another tangent...
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by BJ:

My deal is actually less along the lines of red/blue. I just think we've reached a point of system complexity and size that makes effective governance impossible...
Click to expand...

The system complexity of our globalized world is a strong argument for government at higher levels (although not necessarily *bigger* government, but maybe so in certain circumstances). And while some may fear world government, (flexible) multi-level government is really the key, to better facilitate coordination and cooperation.

As far as capture, that happens to any institutional arrangement and is a strong argument for why we shouldn't be afraid to innovate on documents that were written 200+ years ago when the world was full of farmers. But that's another tangent...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's a tangent. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.

Also, if you have a moment, I'd like for you to explain your first paragraph a little more. Instinctively, I think of smaller systems as more agile.
 
originally posted by VLM:

I'm not sure that's a tangent. I'm interested in your thoughts on that.

Also, if you have a moment, I'd like for you to explain your first paragraph a little more. Instinctively, I think of smaller systems as more agile.
Click to expand...

Small systems may be more agile, but they don't necessarily have enough resources for big investments. Then there is the question of coordination. The big problems of our globalized world (climate change, covid-19) require coordination. That doesn't mean local govts are irrelevant, but we also need larger structures for coordination.

(Or we could leave the investments and coordination to the 21st century Übermenschen like Bezos, Musk, Ellison, Gates, etc. But I don't think that's the answer.)

As far as out-dated institutions, lots one could say. One basic point is that institutions are never static, so if you want to achieve the outcomes that worked well at time t, chances are you would need to use different institutions at time t+1.

Then there is the point that our Founders designed our country in a time when most people were farmers and government's main role was to secure the borders. They had no way of conceptualizing how to respond to climate change or covid-19 (or many other contemporary issues). We can respect principles of freedom, liberty and equality, but there's a strong argument that respecting those principles requires different institutions/laws in 2021.

And now our Local Disorderly Legal Folks can jump in!
 
originally posted by Rahsaan:
Then there is the point that our Founders designed our country in a time when most people were farmers and government's main role was to secure the borders. They had no way of conceptualizing how to respond to climate change or covid-19 (or many other contemporary issues). We can respect principles of freedom, liberty and equality, but there's a strong argument that respecting those principles requires different institutions/laws in 2021.
Click to expand...
Yes, our founding documents provide us with the very best society that the 18th C had to offer.
 
I am, as I have said above, with the necessity of global institutions, at least for some things, and against absolute disintegration inherent in Euro-nationalisms and states rights here. But the problem with updating institutions is how to go about doing it anymore. There are mechanisms for updating the constitution and, they mostly worked until the mid 20th century, or so, but in a period where, except during a pandemic, you can't get normal legislation done, the idea of updating the constitution is purely notional except by judicial fiat and, of course, the judge doing the fiat-ing always believes that he or she is merely interpreting correctly. It's not the best way of going about things.
 
At a high level, except for (1) dated or flawed or unneeded features like an electoral system or the second amendment, (2) more clear definition of the role and authority of branch departments, and (3) more modern and clear definitions of bases of discrimination for equal protection (i.e., protecting minorities against the majority), I think the Constitution has held up well as a flexible framework unless philosophically you want to scrap the Executive/lLegislative divide and go parliamentary.

I don’t think the problems with the federal government are structural such that specific changes would lead to objective improvement. Brad, is what you propose structural or just taking away powers the federal government has / exerts now and giving it back to state and local gov’t or both?
 
The Second Amendment is dated because we don't need to guarantee the existence of state militias, not because of absurd reading of it that currently rules by judicial fiat. But that's another argument and we've had it elsewhere.
 
Are people supporting deep structural changes in our governance overreacting to a uniquely demented anomaly that is the current GOP leadership?

Or was the relatively progressive, prosperous and collegial period in the mid-20th century the anomaly? (hope not)
 
I don’t think progress is an anomaly. Or at least I hope not. I think social change takes time and evolution, and political power that is able to effect it. I could see how folks could think core structural change is needed to institutionalize their values, but that’s unlikely in our lifetime.

Re: mid-century, are you all invoking the Civil Rights movement through the Courts and then legislation in the 60s? Although maybe people in the Fed gov’t were more collegial or polite mid-century, the struggles for systemic changes in the 50s and 60s, and coming out of the McCarthy era in the US, were bloody, divisive on many levels, fraught with deep-seated beliefs in the failure of government,.... I didn’t live through it, but I’m not sure it’s a good benchmark for anything other than a progressive start for Civil Rights.
 
originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
I don’t think progress is an anomaly. Or at least I hope not. I think social change takes time and evolution, and political power that is able to effect it. I could see how folks could think core structural change is needed to institutionalize their values, but that’s unlikely in our lifetime.
Click to expand...

Right. I completely agree. But I guess we got tired of waiting, so we decamped to Scandinavia where there a far more egalitarian society, plus free healthcare for all, free higher education and a social safety net that generally works. As VLM aptly said, "Mark E. moved there to get out this fucktard country, so there must be something going on there." Sure, it is far from perfect - and the weather often sucks (if it didn't half the world would try to immigrate here). Yet the US - ever more polarized - seemed to increasingly be a place where simple fairness and progressive values were under daily attack.
 
I think I was the one who invoked mid-century, and I did so only in terms of the possibility of amending the constitution.The basis for my saying so is that amendments 16-26 were all passed between 1909 and 1971, all in reasonably quick time. The only amendemnt thereafter, which affects congressional pay, was passed in 1992 (two hundred years after it was proposed). I really don't think that at some point after 1971, we all decided that we had gotten in constitution right and in its final form.
 
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
was the relatively progressive, prosperous and collegial period in the mid-20th century the anomaly?
Click to expand...

So much about the mid-2th century was an anomaly, it doesn't seem like a blueprint for anything. Most of the world had been devastated by two world wars and decades/centuries of colonialism. The few countries that got out in front could capture enough prosperity to briefly spread the wealth domestically in historically anomalous ways. But once their advantages were clipped they had a lot less solidarity.
 
I want to be clear I am not advocating for the dissolution of the US. That is a bad idea. I am advocating for the actual completion of what the Republicans say they want but implement only to the degree it benefits them - the massive devolution of authority to the state level. And I am talking about massive - even to the level of Constitutional rights. Let regions decide for themselves. Federal authority is limited to financial, international trade, and military. Personal rights, taxation, social programs, medicine, economic development, infrastructure, transportation all at State level. Invert the taxation pyramid with most $$ staying at state level.

I used to get excited about the idea of superregions, like Cascadia/Ecotopia that would extend from NorCal to BC, but I am more dubious of that now. I actually think most of our states are a pretty nice size for effective governance. Most have a decent blend of urban/rural. They have existed long enough to have a bit of a unique identity. Some, like California and Texas, probably could use a breakup (CA especially). A few could consolidate (Connecticut and RI, the Dakotas). Probably some border adjustment would be positive too (say Mormonia, picking up chunks of Idaho and AZ).

My own home state of Washington is a really nice size. 7 million pop. We are remarkably similar to the Nordics. Oh so tantalizing of a potential analog.
 
You have indeed described the dissolution of the US, particularly in your idea that states will not be obligated to afford constitutional rights. Such an arrangement was the dream of Robert Nozk and would have happily satisfied the antebellum slaveholding south , as would your Nordic state, despite its Democratic politics.
 
I'm with the Prof. No go for me, BJ. Just a libertarian wet dream (all of which sound like liberty but turn out to be prison).

I appreciate that you are tired of the arguing but that isn't the Constitution's doing. It doesn't mention political parties.

Anyway, there is a reason we don't have thousands of city-states all across the globe: bigger organizations can do more. "More is different"
 
I appreciate the perspective, but probably worth recognizing the groundswell for such an approach in many, many corners of the country...
 
And I totally don't get the libertarian reference, fwiw. I think the overall result would be more, effective governance. I'm saying constitutional rights would be established at the state level, not that there wouldn't be an constitutional rights.
 
originally posted by BJ:
And I totally don't get the libertarian reference, fwiw. I think the overall result would be more, effective governance. I'm saying constitutional rights would be established at the state level, not that there wouldn't be an constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Libertarians like limited federal governments, on the order of the abilities you outlined though I'm not sure most Ls would give it power over the currency.

--

BJ, let's start with an easy one: When Prohibition was repealed no new federal law was put in its place. We now have 50 different sets of alcohol-related laws. Do you think this is working well?
 
I think of libertarians advocating for limited government in general, not limited federal government. I'm arguing for something much different.

I don't have the brain cells to argue what should sit on which divide. I just know we are too far over on the spectrum. Local solutions connected with real $$ will result in much better communities.

I am pretty sure if Trump is reelected, things will strongly move in this direction.

I also want to be clear I am not being silly about this in terms of radical breakaway, etc.. It would have to be a mutually agreed decision. I believe this idea generally will gain currency over the next decade and it will just be a natural move.

Also, I am not saying no more United States. I am saying a much different United States. More of a European Union type of United States.
 
originally posted by BJ:
I appreciate the perspective, but probably worth recognizing the groundswell for such an approach in many, many corners of the country...
Click to expand...

What makes you think it wouldn't end up like post-Yugoslavia, or the U.S. about 1858 minus the slavery but with far more lethal weaponry?

If California ends up like France, Vermont like Denmark, Texas like Turkey and Mississipi like Guatamala, is that a change for the better?

Not rhetorical questions, I'm actually curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top