Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

    As a resident of a state who's government is dominated by a relatively small corner of the state that is populated by a radically different culture, I sympathize with the plight of average Californians. But at the same time, I'm not sure merely Balkanizing our states really gets to the heart of the matter.


    Among the suggested benefits of the proposed plan...

    Originally posted by Tim Draper in the proposal
    1. It is about time California was properly represented with Senators in Washington. Now our number of Senators per person will be about average.
    I think someone misses the point of the Senate. They have 50+ seats in the House. The last time we used Senate seats to appease opposing ideas we merely delayed the inevitable civil war.
    Originally posted by Tim Draper in the proposal
    2. Competition is good, monopolies are bad. This initiative encourages more competition and less monopolistic power. Like all competitive systems, costs will be lower and service will be better.
    Establishing a separate state in and of itself will not prevent government from monopolizing power, what matters is how you govern.
    Originally posted by Tim Draper in the proposal
    3. Each new state can start fresh. From a new crowd sourced state flower to a more relevant constitution.
    Again, the freedom you want comes from how you govern, not the shininess of your constitution. The Constitution is not broken, we have deluded ourselves into thinking we are actually following it.
    Originally posted by Tim Draper in the proposal
    4. Decisions can be more relevant to the population. The regulations in one new state are not appropriate for another.
    Then you could just assign powers exercised by the state government to the county government.
    Originally posted by Tim Draper in the proposal
    5. Individuals can move between states more freely.
    The interstate highway system already makes this as easy as can be. The proposed plan would just require us to buy new road signs.

    Those critiques aside, there are undeniable issues that if left unaddressed will have disastrous consequences not just for California or New York, but the entire country. As the proposal states...

    C. As a consequence of these and other socio-economic factors, political representation of California’s diverse population and economies has rendered the state nearly ungovernable. Additionally, vast parts of our state are poorly served by a representative government dominated by a large number of elected representatives from a small part of our state, both geographically and economically.
    These socio-economic factors are just symptoms of an ever widening disconnect between the urban and rural cultures. Cities exist for a reason, as a place to exchange goods and ideas, typically located in an easily defensible location or close to a strategic resource, and the local population exists to facilitate that exchange, but they have always been and still are dependent on rural areas for essential life support, and everyone knew it, if not because they went to and from the city to trade, then because at least once a generation a foreign army would lay siege to the city and everyone would get real hungry real fast. This is a formula that worked for all of human history, until a couple centuries ago. As a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, two trends where set into motion. Agriculture became more productive and more mechanized, requiring far less labor. At the same time jobs open up in cities to produce that mechanization. The population shifts to urban areas, and within a generation people lose the ability to provide for themselves like their rural counterparts, who even in the worst times, could typically at least feed themselves first. Those in the cities only eat when someone else needs their labor. There is a reason why Marx and Engels came up with there ideas when they did (1840's Germany), this demographic shift hit a critical mass, and suddenly you've got a large vulnerable population without the self-reliance skills of their fathers who turn into an angry mob with very little provocation. Socialism takes hold in Europe to appease the masses. America holds on for another century because of our vast frontier, but by the time of the Great Depression, we are in the same boat. Those still in the country, and those in the suburbs who still appreciate the value of self-reliance, even if they don't necessarily completely accomplish it personally, cling to as much self-governance as they can, and resent those who take it away. Those in the cities, who by and large have no means of self-reliance do to the environment, and after a couple generations have no concept of it, will always turn to Big Brother, and resent those that deny Big Brother anything.

    Those are the forces arrayed in legislatures across the country today. And it doesn't matter how you slice up any particular state, so long as there is a large urban population it will be at odds with the rural. The cultures will never be compatible in a way that will allow a single law to be beneficial for both. We need cities, and though I think technology is catching up I think cities will always need rural areas in some way, shape or form. But the rules need to be different.

    We need to better utilize an existing division of territory, the district. We are familiar with the District of Columbia, set aside as the national capital and not a part of any state, that is largely governed by the mayor, but has some things settled by the Congress. We are also familiar with its representation, or lack thereof, that no one can seem to agree on how to solve, even though we all know sooner or later they will get a Senate seat and representatives. If we give districts status to major cities across America, meaning that they are administratively independent from their parent state under the Federal government, we will free up state houses across the country to actually serve the constituents of the rest of the state, and the cities can do whatever it is they feel they need to do, and the rest of us don't have to worry about the Bloombergs coming upstate and forcing their nonsense on the rest of the state. They can have a Senator, and proportional representation in the house.

    This level of independence is the only way to allow both to do what they do best.

  • #2
    Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

    The odds of this happening are equal to someone being struck by lightning... twice... on a clear day... then mauled by a black bear... all while standing on a island in the Caribbean.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

      Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
      The odds of this happening are equal to someone being struck by lightning... twice... on a clear day... then mauled by a black bear... all while standing on a island in the Caribbean.
      Pfffftttt... Please... That's not so hard... its not like the bear has to dance or anything.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

        They could accomplish something similar by just apportioning electoral votes according to popular vote.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          They could accomplish something similar by just apportioning electoral votes according to popular vote.
          True, but you would think the idea behind this also involved keeping tax revenue generated from one area form headed to some other part of the state with higher claims on spending. That could be said very often of communities of any size that want to split from each other. It comes down to ideology of who is in charge, and where the money is going.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

            I have long been a proponent of splitting the states:

            New York and Illinois, are two of them I'd split in a second. As Commodore notes in the OP, both states are driven by a very small pocket of the population that is not homogenous with the remainder of the state.

            California would be another one, but not (IMO) into six separate states: I'd go with two, divided roughly along the 120o W Longitude line with the east/south half being South California and the west/north half being North California (or they can make up new names if they wish).

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

              With that thinking we could be well north of 200+ states when done splitting up urban areas, or other pockets of the population, out of synch (lack of a better word) than the surrounding areas. Is that your proposal?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                With that thinking we could be well north of 200+ states when done splitting up urban areas, or other pockets of the population, out of synch (lack of a better word) than the surrounding areas. Is that your proposal?
                There is a school of thought that rather than grow larger, government... all governments should grow small thus allowing for more local control. Agencies like the NYC schools are broken up into 32 "Community School Districts" to effect more local control.

                Now as with all things there are pluses and minuses with this: done well, this is the natural and purest form of democracy... The people deciding just what an how things are done. You see this in places like town meeting in New England.

                On the other hand, this is also the 'home' of NIMBY.

                This split of California will never happen... all because of water.

                Citywide and Community Education Councils - Offices & Programs - New York City Department of Education

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                  I grew up in Upstate New York and I guarantee that those folks would love to see everything south of Poughkeepsie become another state. Or better yet, fall off into the Atlantic.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                    With that thinking we could be well north of 200+ states when done splitting up urban areas, or other pockets of the population, out of synch (lack of a better word) than the surrounding areas. Is that your proposal?
                    That's why I suggested singling out the cities themselves. Any area over a certain population and density becomes an independent district. It makes a lot more sense than merely cutting up states.

                    There are a number of different ways to define that.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                      Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                      As a resident of a state who's government is dominated by a relatively small corner of the state that is populated by a radically different culture, I sympathize with the plight of average Californians. But at the same time, I'm not sure merely Balkanizing our states really gets to the heart of the matter.


                      Among the suggested benefits of the proposed plan...


                      I think someone misses the point of the Senate. They have 50+ seats in the House. The last time we used Senate seats to appease opposing ideas we merely delayed the inevitable civil war.

                      Establishing a separate state in and of itself will not prevent government from monopolizing power, what matters is how you govern.

                      Again, the freedom you want comes from how you govern, not the shininess of your constitution. The Constitution is not broken, we have deluded ourselves into thinking we are actually following it.

                      Then you could just assign powers exercised by the state government to the county government.

                      The interstate highway system already makes this as easy as can be. The proposed plan would just require us to buy new road signs.

                      Those critiques aside, there are undeniable issues that if left unaddressed will have disastrous consequences not just for California or New York, but the entire country. As the proposal states...



                      These socio-economic factors are just symptoms of an ever widening disconnect between the urban and rural cultures. Cities exist for a reason, as a place to exchange goods and ideas, typically located in an easily defensible location or close to a strategic resource, and the local population exists to facilitate that exchange, but they have always been and still are dependent on rural areas for essential life support, and everyone knew it, if not because they went to and from the city to trade, then because at least once a generation a foreign army would lay siege to the city and everyone would get real hungry real fast. This is a formula that worked for all of human history, until a couple centuries ago. As a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, two trends where set into motion. Agriculture became more productive and more mechanized, requiring far less labor. At the same time jobs open up in cities to produce that mechanization. The population shifts to urban areas, and within a generation people lose the ability to provide for themselves like their rural counterparts, who even in the worst times, could typically at least feed themselves first. Those in the cities only eat when someone else needs their labor. There is a reason why Marx and Engels came up with there ideas when they did (1840's Germany), this demographic shift hit a critical mass, and suddenly you've got a large vulnerable population without the self-reliance skills of their fathers who turn into an angry mob with very little provocation. Socialism takes hold in Europe to appease the masses. America holds on for another century because of our vast frontier, but by the time of the Great Depression, we are in the same boat. Those still in the country, and those in the suburbs who still appreciate the value of self-reliance, even if they don't necessarily completely accomplish it personally, cling to as much self-governance as they can, and resent those who take it away. Those in the cities, who by and large have no means of self-reliance do to the environment, and after a couple generations have no concept of it, will always turn to Big Brother, and resent those that deny Big Brother anything.

                      Those are the forces arrayed in legislatures across the country today. And it doesn't matter how you slice up any particular state, so long as there is a large urban population it will be at odds with the rural. The cultures will never be compatible in a way that will allow a single law to be beneficial for both. We need cities, and though I think technology is catching up I think cities will always need rural areas in some way, shape or form. But the rules need to be different.

                      We need to better utilize an existing division of territory, the district. We are familiar with the District of Columbia, set aside as the national capital and not a part of any state, that is largely governed by the mayor, but has some things settled by the Congress. We are also familiar with its representation, or lack thereof, that no one can seem to agree on how to solve, even though we all know sooner or later they will get a Senate seat and representatives. If we give districts status to major cities across America, meaning that they are administratively independent from their parent state under the Federal government, we will free up state houses across the country to actually serve the constituents of the rest of the state, and the cities can do whatever it is they feel they need to do, and the rest of us don't have to worry about the Bloombergs coming upstate and forcing their nonsense on the rest of the state. They can have a Senator, and proportional representation in the house.

                      This level of independence is the only way to allow both to do what they do best.
                      That notion came and went years ago. Texas still wants to secede; I say "asta la' byebye" to them.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                        Originally posted by Commodore View Post
                        As a resident of a state who's government is dominated by a relatively small corner of the state that is populated by a radically different culture, I sympathize with the plight of average Californians. But at the same time, I'm not sure merely Balkanizing our states really gets to the heart of the matter.


                        Among the suggested benefits of the proposed plan...


                        I think someone misses the point of the Senate. They have 50+ seats in the House. The last time we used Senate seats to appease opposing ideas we merely delayed the inevitable civil war.

                        Establishing a separate state in and of itself will not prevent government from monopolizing power, what matters is how you govern.

                        Again, the freedom you want comes from how you govern, not the shininess of your constitution. The Constitution is not broken, we have deluded ourselves into thinking we are actually following it.

                        Then you could just assign powers exercised by the state government to the county government.

                        The interstate highway system already makes this as easy as can be. The proposed plan would just require us to buy new road signs.

                        Those critiques aside, there are undeniable issues that if left unaddressed will have disastrous consequences not just for California or New York, but the entire country. As the proposal states...



                        These socio-economic factors are just symptoms of an ever widening disconnect between the urban and rural cultures. Cities exist for a reason, as a place to exchange goods and ideas, typically located in an easily defensible location or close to a strategic resource, and the local population exists to facilitate that exchange, but they have always been and still are dependent on rural areas for essential life support, and everyone knew it, if not because they went to and from the city to trade, then because at least once a generation a foreign army would lay siege to the city and everyone would get real hungry real fast. This is a formula that worked for all of human history, until a couple centuries ago. As a consequence of the Industrial Revolution, two trends where set into motion. Agriculture became more productive and more mechanized, requiring far less labor. At the same time jobs open up in cities to produce that mechanization. The population shifts to urban areas, and within a generation people lose the ability to provide for themselves like their rural counterparts, who even in the worst times, could typically at least feed themselves first. Those in the cities only eat when someone else needs their labor. There is a reason why Marx and Engels came up with there ideas when they did (1840's Germany), this demographic shift hit a critical mass, and suddenly you've got a large vulnerable population without the self-reliance skills of their fathers who turn into an angry mob with very little provocation. Socialism takes hold in Europe to appease the masses. America holds on for another century because of our vast frontier, but by the time of the Great Depression, we are in the same boat. Those still in the country, and those in the suburbs who still appreciate the value of self-reliance, even if they don't necessarily completely accomplish it personally, cling to as much self-governance as they can, and resent those who take it away. Those in the cities, who by and large have no means of self-reliance do to the environment, and after a couple generations have no concept of it, will always turn to Big Brother, and resent those that deny Big Brother anything.

                        Those are the forces arrayed in legislatures across the country today. And it doesn't matter how you slice up any particular state, so long as there is a large urban population it will be at odds with the rural. The cultures will never be compatible in a way that will allow a single law to be beneficial for both. We need cities, and though I think technology is catching up I think cities will always need rural areas in some way, shape or form. But the rules need to be different.

                        We need to better utilize an existing division of territory, the district. We are familiar with the District of Columbia, set aside as the national capital and not a part of any state, that is largely governed by the mayor, but has some things settled by the Congress. We are also familiar with its representation, or lack thereof, that no one can seem to agree on how to solve, even though we all know sooner or later they will get a Senate seat and representatives. If we give districts status to major cities across America, meaning that they are administratively independent from their parent state under the Federal government, we will free up state houses across the country to actually serve the constituents of the rest of the state, and the cities can do whatever it is they feel they need to do, and the rest of us don't have to worry about the Bloombergs coming upstate and forcing their nonsense on the rest of the state. They can have a Senator, and proportional representation in the house.

                        This level of independence is the only way to allow both to do what they do best.
                        USA USA USA!!!!!!!! Dude homerun!!! Quoted for truth

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                          The easy solution is just to divest more of the state power into the various smaller governance that already exist in the states. Not everything has to be decided at the state level. This is not dissimilar to how most of us want power reinstated to the states from the federal government.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                            When TX joined the US, it had the option to split up into as many as 5 states. It might still have that option. I don't see the advantage of it, but it may still be in the treaty.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Six California's: Nightmare or Killer App?

                              Originally posted by Texan View Post
                              When TX joined the US, it had the option to split up into as many as 5 states. It might still have that option. I don't see the advantage of it, but it may still be in the treaty.
                              I believe it also had the option to secede. And we all know how well that worked out.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X