I give your snark a C-, it was passably amusing, but just barely.
Advertisement
by Telconi » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:49 pm
by The Two Jerseys » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:00 pm
by Neu Leonstein » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:43 pm
by Thermodolia » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:38 pm
by Telconi » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:41 pm
by Doing it Rightland » Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:57 pm
San Lumen wrote:If you know that I don’t understand why we need the changes your proposing which aren’t practical
San Lumen wrote:Your scenario is an impossible one. Your not going to have every district won by 51-49
Neu Leonstein wrote:I'm not much of a Marxist, but I have always had a certain predilection for the underlying idea behind historical materialism... the idea that our institutions and societies will, over really long time frames, change with economic and technological realities. You know, once the usefulness of a castle for everyone to go hide in diminished, so did the role of the people who owned those castles in our institutions, etc.
Urbanisation is probably among the most important major economic trends of the 20th century, and in quite a few places it will be in the 21st century as well.
Another major trend of the second half of the 20th century has been the substantial reduction in the cost and time of trading internationally. Vietnamese or Mexican workers have always earned less than American ones, but the idea that it would make economic sense to harvest cotton in Mexico, put it on a ship and sail it across the Pacific to Vietnam to make a shirt out of it, back to Mexico to print something onto that shirt, and then to Boston to put into a store would have seemed pretty out there to someone from earlier in the last century.
Yet another major trend is that there is more and more relative value in services and especially in knowledge-based activities, where the output might be some form of IP rather than a physical product. Invention and innovation are more useful in those sectors than efficiency in production, given that the IP can be replicated almost costlessly. But what you do need to foster innovation is an environment that has a certain critical mass of the sorts of people and supporting sectors of 'creative' pursuits that you don't find in very low-density regions.
Which is to say that, as far as the underlying economic and technological realities are concerned, the share of productive activity in our societies that takes place in larger cities is growing and will probably continue to grow.
Coming back to historical materialism, one might say that a 'nation' as invented in the 18th and 19th centuries was a construct that amalgamated the newly-emergent industrial cities with the hinterlands they needed to provide the resources and physical protection (in the form of potential military recruits from the rural population). Whether you call that amalgamation the result of a plot by industrialists to create a false sense of loyalty towards one's oppressors is neither here nor there. What matters is that one can come up with an economic function that the institution of the 'nation' served.
But those economic functions are changing over time. As a share of output, rural production (i.e. primary industries like farming or mining, and in many places secondary industries like manufacturing) is becoming less and less important. The proportion of the urban economy that needs to be used to procure these inputs from the rural economy can be expected to shrink. And not only that - because transport costs have come down so much, it's not necessarily rural areas close to the city, or even in the same country, which can competitively supply these inputs. At the same time, other inputs are becoming relatively more important (e.g. IP, technology and talented individuals), and those can mostly only be found in other cities.
So there are a number of factors that would suggest that the importance of the rural area of a country to its cities is diminishing over time. A historical materialist viewpoint would be that we will see our institutions change as a result. Cities are increasingly being asked to pay for rural communities, while at the same time the importance (and, dare I say it, cultural relevance) of those rural communities is shrinking. It's only a matter of time before people start to put 2 and 2 together.
Right now we're in a phase that might well threaten to accelerate this process. On issues like Brexit or Trump, rural populations are imposing unpopular policy choices on urban ones. Generating these sorts of grievances might backfire. The Brexit referendum was followed by calls for London to declare its own exit from the UK. These were (mostly) not serious... but how long before that changes?
My recommendation to rural populations would be to enjoy it while it lasts, and stop sawing the branch they're sitting on. A world of alliances of independent city states would be a far closer alignment of political power and economic contribution than what we have right now.(Image)
by Hagston » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:22 pm
by San Lumen » Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:34 pm
Doing it Rightland wrote:Sorry, this is a long response. I've broken it down in each spoiler.San Lumen wrote:If you know that I don’t understand why we need the changes your proposing which aren’t practical
My changes are putting more authority in the hands of the counties. Budget distribution is still is held by the state, but individual counties would be more able to govern themselves and address their solutions.San Lumen wrote:Your scenario is an impossible one. Your not going to have every district won by 51-49
This example isn't exactly by that slim of margins, but look at the state of New Mexico. A little over 30% of the country is registered Republican, and around 45% Democrat. Yet, all the senate and house seats are controlled by Democrats. Sounds real unrepresentative to me. I agree that STV and IRV is the way to go to fix this though.Neu Leonstein wrote:I'm not much of a Marxist, but I have always had a certain predilection for the underlying idea behind historical materialism... the idea that our institutions and societies will, over really long time frames, change with economic and technological realities. You know, once the usefulness of a castle for everyone to go hide in diminished, so did the role of the people who owned those castles in our institutions, etc.
Urbanisation is probably among the most important major economic trends of the 20th century, and in quite a few places it will be in the 21st century as well.
Another major trend of the second half of the 20th century has been the substantial reduction in the cost and time of trading internationally. Vietnamese or Mexican workers have always earned less than American ones, but the idea that it would make economic sense to harvest cotton in Mexico, put it on a ship and sail it across the Pacific to Vietnam to make a shirt out of it, back to Mexico to print something onto that shirt, and then to Boston to put into a store would have seemed pretty out there to someone from earlier in the last century.
Yet another major trend is that there is more and more relative value in services and especially in knowledge-based activities, where the output might be some form of IP rather than a physical product. Invention and innovation are more useful in those sectors than efficiency in production, given that the IP can be replicated almost costlessly. But what you do need to foster innovation is an environment that has a certain critical mass of the sorts of people and supporting sectors of 'creative' pursuits that you don't find in very low-density regions.
Which is to say that, as far as the underlying economic and technological realities are concerned, the share of productive activity in our societies that takes place in larger cities is growing and will probably continue to grow.
Coming back to historical materialism, one might say that a 'nation' as invented in the 18th and 19th centuries was a construct that amalgamated the newly-emergent industrial cities with the hinterlands they needed to provide the resources and physical protection (in the form of potential military recruits from the rural population). Whether you call that amalgamation the result of a plot by industrialists to create a false sense of loyalty towards one's oppressors is neither here nor there. What matters is that one can come up with an economic function that the institution of the 'nation' served.
But those economic functions are changing over time. As a share of output, rural production (i.e. primary industries like farming or mining, and in many places secondary industries like manufacturing) is becoming less and less important. The proportion of the urban economy that needs to be used to procure these inputs from the rural economy can be expected to shrink. And not only that - because transport costs have come down so much, it's not necessarily rural areas close to the city, or even in the same country, which can competitively supply these inputs. At the same time, other inputs are becoming relatively more important (e.g. IP, technology and talented individuals), and those can mostly only be found in other cities.
So there are a number of factors that would suggest that the importance of the rural area of a country to its cities is diminishing over time. A historical materialist viewpoint would be that we will see our institutions change as a result. Cities are increasingly being asked to pay for rural communities, while at the same time the importance (and, dare I say it, cultural relevance) of those rural communities is shrinking. It's only a matter of time before people start to put 2 and 2 together.
Right now we're in a phase that might well threaten to accelerate this process. On issues like Brexit or Trump, rural populations are imposing unpopular policy choices on urban ones. Generating these sorts of grievances might backfire. The Brexit referendum was followed by calls for London to declare its own exit from the UK. These were (mostly) not serious... but how long before that changes?
My recommendation to rural populations would be to enjoy it while it lasts, and stop sawing the branch they're sitting on. A world of alliances of independent city states would be a far closer alignment of political power and economic contribution than what we have right now.(Image)
Yes, urbanization has been a major facet of the 20th century, bringing about immense changes to the world economy. But, I have a few issues with your statements. My apologies for such a dense series of statements.
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. And finally, the main reason cities comprise that much of America's income is because (according to the US Census Bureau as of 2015) around 63% of Americans live in cities, and a total of 80% in urban areas (includes surrounding sprawl not otherwise part of the city). That density is unsustainable without rural communities doing hard work to provide the raw materials needed.
City-states are great and all, but if there's nobody outside them, then how would they survive? Current estimates state that a family of 4 needs 2 acres of land to feed themselves for a year, and since NYC has roughly 8.6 million people, that equates to a little over 6700 square miles of land needed. Considering New York State is about 54.5 thousand square miles, then you'd need at least 12% of the whole state's land used to make food (and nothing else) for one city.
Acquiring fuel, metal, consumer goods, technologies, and everything that a modern society needs to function drastically expands the land requirement. That's not even considering anyone else in the state of New York, not to mention the rest of New England, which isn't particularly known for it's agriculture compared to areas like the midwest.
Edit: Have fixed many grammatical and spelling errors.
by Thermodolia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:42 am
San Lumen wrote:Doing it Rightland wrote:Sorry, this is a long response. I've broken it down in each spoiler.My changes are putting more authority in the hands of the counties. Budget distribution is still is held by the state, but individual counties would be more able to govern themselves and address their solutions.
This example isn't exactly by that slim of margins, but look at the state of New Mexico. A little over 30% of the country is registered Republican, and around 45% Democrat. Yet, all the senate and house seats are controlled by Democrats. Sounds real unrepresentative to me. I agree that STV and IRV is the way to go to fix this though.Yes, urbanization has been a major facet of the 20th century, bringing about immense changes to the world economy. But, I have a few issues with your statements. My apologies for such a dense series of statements.
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. And finally, the main reason cities comprise that much of America's income is because (according to the US Census Bureau as of 2015) around 63% of Americans live in cities, and a total of 80% in urban areas (includes surrounding sprawl not otherwise part of the city). That density is unsustainable without rural communities doing hard work to provide the raw materials needed.
City-states are great and all, but if there's nobody outside them, then how would they survive? Current estimates state that a family of 4 needs 2 acres of land to feed themselves for a year, and since NYC has roughly 8.6 million people, that equates to a little over 6700 square miles of land needed. Considering New York State is about 54.5 thousand square miles, then you'd need at least 12% of the whole state's land used to make food (and nothing else) for one city.
Acquiring fuel, metal, consumer goods, technologies, and everything that a modern society needs to function drastically expands the land requirement. That's not even considering anyone else in the state of New York, not to mention the rest of New England, which isn't particularly known for it's agriculture compared to areas like the midwest.
Edit: Have fixed many grammatical and spelling errors.
I agree that Irv or STV is the ideal solution as it doesn’t require radically altering the law and totally revamping our election system
by Thermodolia » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:40 am
by United New England » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:03 pm
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
by Neu Leonstein » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:04 pm
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).
by Telconi » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:37 pm
by Ghost Land » Sun Jan 13, 2019 5:01 am
by Doing it Rightland » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 am
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.
by Telconi » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:31 pm
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.Breakdown 2: Electric Boogaloo
Note: This is modified from when I initially posted it due to some concerns brought forth.
County
For things that are going to be heavily dependent on the region itself. For example, NYC could pass stricter gun legislation to reduce crime, and somewhere like Syracuse or Buffalo can have more relaxed policies since they're rural communities that don't have the same violent crime issues as large cities. This could also extend to stuff like farming; why should NYC bother wasting its time discussing agricultural regulations for upstate NY when they can merely let the rural communities pass their own regulations?
State
For the financial stability of the counties. The State government would be reduced to tax distribution, judicial matters, and maybe a few auxiliary functions. That way, individual counties can more easily assess their own situations, but the revenue needed can still be amply supplied. If taxing was given to the counties, rural areas especially would struggle to gain enough money to sustain themselves. But aside from these responsibilities, I don't believe the state government needs much more authority.
National
For things that are going to more universally affect the entire nation, whether it be foreign policy, civil rights protections (like gay marriage). These things are going to be important to everyone, and not disproportionately impacting rural or urban areas.
by San Lumen » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:52 pm
by Doing it Rightland » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:21 pm
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.
by Telconi » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:04 pm
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
by San Lumen » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:28 pm
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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Benuty, Click Ests Vimgalevytopia, Elwher, Ifreann, Repreteop, Rio Cana, Talibanada, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan, Uiiop, Valentine Z, Zancostan
Advertisement