Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:49 pm
I give your snark a C-, it was passably amusing, but just barely.
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
Doing it Rightland wrote:Sorry, this is a long response. I've broken it down in each spoiler.
Edit: Have fixed many grammatical and spelling errors.
Doing it Rightland wrote:That's not even considering anyone else in the state of New York, not to mention the rest of New England
Doing it Rightland wrote:Primarily, if you consider the people who grow the crops, who mine the metals and coal, who provide the materials that cities use to grow and flourish to not be adequately participating in "productive activity" then you are blind. The only reason cities are even sustainable is because rural communities have become incredibly efficient at providing vast quantities of materials at low costs, utilizing a strong transportation network. The importance of these rural areas is not becoming less important, and if anything, is more important to fuel cities to continue to grow.
Some "Talented Individuals" originating from cities (since apparently rural areas don't have those) like engineers are great, don't get me wrong. But without enough people who know how realize an engineer's vision, then their brains aren't worth as much.
If people "put 2 and 2 together" like you suggest, what happens? You don't continue this point. Do you just cut the rural communities entirely?
A majority of voters who voted in the 2016 Brexit referendum voted to leave. I disagree with their decision, same as you, but the majority did speak.
Thermodolia wrote:Australia uses STV for the senate (multi-member Districts) and IRV for the house (single member districts).
Neu Leonstein wrote:In aggregate, yes. But my point was that any one rural area is becoming less important to a city. Of course the resources cities need have expanded dramatically, and technological progress has allowed rural areas to provide them. But how much of New York's primary resource inputs are coming from its surrounding countryside? What was that number 50 or 100 years ago? My point is that a city can now cheaply import resources from further and further away. The countryside around New York is competing with places all over the US, and ultimately with places all over the world. What leverage rural areas have is increasingly political rather than economic, and I'm asking whether one without the other will ultimately be sustainable.
Doing it Rightland wrote:First and foremost, you are all correct that NY is not part of New England. I feel very stupid considering I'm from New England and my parents NY. I have corrected it in that post.Neu Leonstein wrote:In aggregate, yes. But my point was that any one rural area is becoming less important to a city. Of course the resources cities need have expanded dramatically, and technological progress has allowed rural areas to provide them. But how much of New York's primary resource inputs are coming from its surrounding countryside? What was that number 50 or 100 years ago? My point is that a city can now cheaply import resources from further and further away. The countryside around New York is competing with places all over the US, and ultimately with places all over the world. What leverage rural areas have is increasingly political rather than economic, and I'm asking whether one without the other will ultimately be sustainable.
You do make a good point here and in the rest of your post, and that actually segways into my proposal from earlier. I proposed that we reduce the amount of power rural districts have over cities and vice versa, and make each more responsible for their own issues. This would be done by reducing the powers held by state governments and giving it to counties (or whatever subdivision system we come up with). That way, rural areas don't hold too much sway over cities (and vice versa of course). I've quoted it in below. There are still some issues with it that we're debating over, but I think it would go a ways to resolve your concern.
Telconi wrote:I think you're correct in that judgement. The only way to prevent mistreatment of a minority at the hands of a majority is to somehow eliminate the majority's capacity to engage in such behavior. Be it by divesting power (which is really only a quantitative reduction) or by specifically inhibiting such mistreatment via constitutional controls.
San Lumen wrote:This alleged mistreatment that you cite Telconi is simply you not liking that people have audacity to disagree with you. That is what we have elections for.
If we are going to inhibit what you allege is mistreatment why bother having elections at all. Lets just make it so whatever the minority thinks is automatically law and then the legislature is totally hamstrung unable to get anything done. It would never be passed as it would be totally unfair government
Telconi wrote:San Lumen wrote:This alleged mistreatment that you cite Telconi is simply you not liking that people have audacity to disagree with you. That is what we have elections for.
If we are going to inhibit what you allege is mistreatment why bother having elections at all. Lets just make it so whatever the minority thinks is automatically law and then the legislature is totally hamstrung unable to get anything done. It would never be passed as it would be totally unfair government
This is as wrong now as the first time you've said it. If you can't understand the functional difference between "people disagreeing with you" and "People forcing you to act on their disagreement" then that's on you.
To elect government officials. Or, y'know, we could be reasonable people. Totally unfair government gets passed all the time, you yourself gloat about it.