Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Can a melting pot society ever truly work?

  1. #1
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142

    Can a melting pot society ever truly work?

    Our country is one of the most diversified nations on earth. Different ethnicities, upbringings and histories all converged under one 'roof'. With this much diversity people are bound to have differing opinions on things. As we see every day, these opinions are often strong enough to motivate these people to actively try to take other peoples rights away.

    No matter which side of the abortion argument you are on, I'm sure all you know people who believe their aspect is superior that strongly. -the ProLife crowd wants to take away the right of a woman to choose what she does with her body, the ProChoice crowd would remove the unborn child's right to life- These people, I feel, will never change their minds. The opposite choice will never be remotely ok with them.

    How can these people coexist in the same society without constantly being at each others throats?

    And this scenario is just an example. Everybody feels this strongly about things, and not everyone can be tolerant enough of others to leave them alone. I, personally, have developed an attitude where if something doesn't involve me directly, it's not my business. An exception, of course, being anyone getting hurt. But I don't think everyone is emotionally/psychologically capable of having this attitude.

    Any thoughts?
    Last edited by hhofent; 05-06-2015 at 10:41 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    It can certainly exist, but only if the various 'ingredients' meld together. And right now, all the 'ingredients' are trying to keep their individual, separate identities instead of melding together into one dish.

    "It's a _____ thing, you wouldn't understand" and "Little ______" ethnic groups that try to preserve a foreign culture are not examples of melding they're examples of what can go wrong.

    (I should mention that I'm not really talking about Little Italy's or Little Korea's or such as they aren't trying to preserve a culture, but areas that are trying to keep Sharia law.)
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 05-06-2015 at 08:54 PM.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    Any thoughts?
    Two.

    1-A melting pot assumes that immigrants and the rest of us merge into a dominant culture, which presupposes there is a dominant culture. This stands in stark contrast to the theory of "tossed salad" in which lots of diverse cultures co-exist side by side.

    2-I don't think you can get a melting pot of 300+ million persons across a significant chunk of a continent. We are too diverse with too many incompatible sub-cultures. I think the answer is proper federalism, by which I mean diversity of laws and culture from State to State.

    The feds should protect clearly enumerated rights to some minimum level, and handle foreign affairs, national currency, interstate issues, and other specifically delegated functions. Individual States should handle all other issues.

    For example, I don't see abortion or the proper definition of marriage mentioned in the federal Constitution. Ditto for gambling, recreational drugs (other than booze), prostitution, nor speed limits. So these things should all be left to the States. Federal courts should refuse to hear cases about forcing States to take any particular position on these issues. One State bans elective abortions and defines marriage as one man and one woman. Another State defines marriage as any two people while legalizing elective abortions. Another defines marriage as any number of persons, legalizes prostitution and gambling, but has some limits on abortion. We vote with our feet and live in a State whose laws and culture suit us.

    On the flip side, RKBA, right to trial by jury, freedom of press, freedom of religion, right to vote at 18 without regard to race or sex, ban on slavery, etc are specifically enumerated and should be protected to some minimum level by the feds. No matter where we live our RKBA is protected to some minimum degree, as is our freedom of religion, jury trial, etc.

    What do I mean by some minimum degree? Well, maybe we agree at the national level that bars, schools, and court buildings can be off limits, but must be clearly marked as such with storage at government buildings that are off limits. Any State can do a better job of respecting RKBA by permitting guns into bars, schools, and courts. But no State can be more restrictive on RKBA than the federal standard. (I'm not suggesting I think this should be the minimum standard, just offering an example.)

    I think we'd get along a lot better as a nation under this type of federalism.

    I fear that without it, we are going to self-destruct as we are all unhappy about big portions of federally imposed one-size-fits-all policies.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    I believe salad-bowl, not melting pot.

    I fear the union and I fear for the union. Lincoln-16 (R-Il) killed the union to save the Union. I am American by the Grace of God and Southeron by my choice. I came to Southeron culture as a mature educated world-wise adult and found it far more healthy that the progressive Yankee-dom than I had first experienced.

    The Hmong culture's reception epitomizes the worst of America.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Two.

    1-A melting pot assumes that immigrants and the rest of us merge into a dominant culture, which presupposes there is a dominant culture. This stands in stark contrast to the theory of "tossed salad" in which lots of diverse cultures co-exist side by side.

    2-I don't think you can get a melting pot of 300+ million persons across a significant chunk of a continent. We are too diverse with too many incompatible sub-cultures. I think the answer is proper federalism, by which I mean diversity of laws and culture from State to State.

    The feds should protect clearly enumerated rights to some minimum level, and handle foreign affairs, national currency, interstate issues, and other specifically delegated functions. Individual States should handle all.
    ...
    We vote with our feet and live in a State whose laws and culture suits us.
    ...
    No matter where we live our RKBA is protected to some minimum degree, as is our freedom of religion, jury trial, etc.
    ...

    I think we'd get along a lot better as a nation under this type of federalism.
    1. Tossed salad is a better metaphor.

    2. One problem I see with this: what happens when a state votes on a swing issue. Wins 50.1% to 49.9%. Is half the state expected to up and move? Why don't people that don't like guns move to Europe or Australia? How does that change anything?

  6. #6
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    Our country is one of the most diversified nations on earth. Different ethnicities, upbringings and histories all converged under one 'roof'. With this much diversity people are bound to have differing opinions on things. As we see every day, these opinions are often strong enough to motivate these people to actively try to take other peoples rights away.

    No matter which side of the abortion argument you are on, I'm sure all you know people who believe their aspect is superior that strongly. -the ProLife crowd wants to take away the right of a woman to choose what she does with her body, the ProChoice crowd would remove the unborn child's right to life- These people, I feel, will never change their minds. The opposite choice will never be remotely ok with them.

    How can these people coexist in the same society without constantly being at each others throats?

    And this scenario is just an example. Everybody feels this strongly about things, and not everyone can be tolerant enough of others to leave them alone. I, personally, have developed an attitude where if something doesn't invoke me directly, it's not my business. An exception, of course, being anyone getting hurt. But I don't think everyone is emotionally/psychologically capable of having this attitude.

    Any thoughts?
    How are they going to enforce their opposite choices without a state?

    A melting pot is growing bigger and bigger as people learn to accept and deal with others cultures. I see no reason why people can't get along as long as they are not enforcing their views upon others.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    How are they going to enforce their opposite choices without a state?

    A melting pot is growing bigger and bigger as people learn to accept and deal with others cultures. I see no reason why people can't get along as long as they are not enforcing their views upon others.
    A state whose politicians pander to one side or the other, keeping them at each others' throats.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    SNIP I, personally, have developed an attitude where if something doesn't invoke me directly, it's not my business.
    Thomas Jefferson's formulation was "[It] neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    How are they going to enforce their opposite choices without a state?
    How about gangs?

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Article IV, Section 1.

    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    Section 2.

    The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

    A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

    Amendment XIV, Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    The 2A seems to be excluded from these requirements.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Thomas Jefferson's formulation was "[It] neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
    Thus Thomas Jefferson has been invoked. There are none so blind as will not see, even through the lamestream's Rosey colored glasses.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    How about gangs?

    How about gangs?

    I actually have no problem with them. Gangs seem to have much of their power and effect because of prohibition.

    Freedom of association to means people can form a group for what ever reason.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    How about gangs? I actually have no problem with them. Gangs seem to have much of their power and effect because of prohibition. Freedom of association to means people can form a group for what ever reason.
    LOL But not freedom to not associate for whatever reason. It is prohibited to refuse service to the ICKY. ICKY is so wonderfully subjective.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Gang? Or club?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,200
    Yes it can when you pour every thing into the pot and it comes out American.

    What we have had for the last 50 or so years is not a melting pot but a separation pot.

    Pushed by the socialists, progressives ect. I am not American, I am African, I am Native, I am Chinese, I am???? American before I am an American.

    They know a house divided is easier to defeat and they have been doing a good job of dividing us.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  16. #16
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    It can certainly exist, but only if the various 'ingredients' meld together. And right now, all the 'ingredients' are trying to keep their individual, separate identities instead of melding together into one dish.
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Yes it can when you pour every thing into the pot and it comes out American.

    What we have had for the last 50 or so years is not a melting pot but a separation pot.
    Special Snowflake Syndrome?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    Special Snowflake Syndrome?
    Very subtle! +1
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    I, personally, have developed an attitude where if something doesn't involve me directly, it's not my business. An exception, of course, being anyone getting hurt. But I don't think everyone is emotionally/psychologically capable of having this attitude.

    Any thoughts?
    The answer is right in your post. Hopefully more and more folks begin to realize, such as you have, that they don't have the right or responsibility to make sure others behave the way you think they should. Everyone is capable... it just takes an epiphany.
    I can remember the exact moment it donned on me... It was like a light bulb came on. Almost like a religious experience.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  19. #19
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    Yes it can when you pour every thing into the pot and it comes out American.

    What we have had for the last 50 or so years is not a melting pot but a separation pot.

    Pushed by the socialists, progressives ect. I am not American, I am African, I am Native, I am Chinese, I am???? American before I am an American.

    They know a house divided is easier to defeat and they have been doing a good job of dividing us.
    +1

    Interesting.

    Trying to remember times when I've looked at a diverse group and saw them all as "Americans"

    I'm thinking 4th of July type occasions

    I think I've slipped from being just opposed to the bastardization of patriotism to thinking negatively of patriotism entirely. Perhaps a return to supporting true patriotism, while maintaining the differentiation between what the government portrays as patriotism, would do me some good.
    Advocate freedom please

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    I, personally, have developed an attitude where if something doesn't involve me directly, it's not my business. An exception, of course, being anyone getting hurt. But I don't think everyone is emotionally/psychologically capable of having this attitude.
    Even if everyone is capable and willing of this attitude at the theoretical level, at the practical level there may well be honest differences of opinion about what does or doesn't involve you directly, or what qualifies as "anyone getting hurt."

    Slavery and abortion are the two easiest examples to mention. Even if you are not a slave nor a slave owner it is clear that slavery is harmful to at least the slave, and likely to the slave owner as well (though the owner presumably has made the choice freely). So do we ban slavery or tolerate it? Leading question, I know.

    Now look to abortion. Like slavery, legal elective abortion doesn't affect you directly unless you are a pregnant woman considering it, or an unborn child subjected to it. But legal elective abortion most certainly hurts the child whose life is ended and likely also hurts the mother (though she may not recognize the damage immediately). On the flip side, bans on abortion impose certain hardships on pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant.

    There are less emotional issues precisely because we've not nationalized them. Does public nudity or sex directly affect you to the point you have some legitimate right to prevent it? Where is the exact line between poor taste and public indecency as clothing reveals more and more? Turns out these are still local issues. There are nude beaches, Vegas, Hollywood, Mardie Gras, and Spring Break in Florida where public decency standards are quite a bit different than in many other locations. A billboard deemed pornographic in Utah or Mississippi might be within acceptable limits in Los Angeles or Vegas.

    The feds have provided a level of respect for freedom of speech/expression below which the States may not drop. States can choose to be more tolerant of pornography, vulgarity, etc, but are not required to. Admittedly, the definition of what is protected and what isn't is not exact and sometimes has be revised. But notice how we have far less concern about public indecency, legal prostitution, or gambling than we do with recreational drugs. Local control minimizes national conflict. Notably, the national concern over recreational drugs seems to be decreasing as the feds de facto permit States to adopt their own policies despite de jur federal laws.

    This stands in stark contrast to 40 years with no real decrease in political conflict nationwide over abortion.

    Those who suggest the entire nation should just adopt a libertarian attitude as the solution to cultural conflicts are a bit like those who think that "diversity" means every institution, neighborhood, etc should have a mix of cultures, races, etc. That isn't "diversity"; every neighborhood, every newspaper editorial board, every board of trustees, now looks the same.

    Diversity is when we have left leaning newspapers, right leaning media, libertarian organs, religious voices, and secular media all available, competing for customers, and providing different views of the news. Unbiased reporting is a nice thought. Maybe it is achievable. But even the choices of which events are "newsworthy" vs which are not will be made with certain biases. Maybe honestly advertised bias is better than hiding biases.

    I don't want every restaurant to try to do a good job of 15 different styles of food. I want a place that specializes in Chicago Style pizza, while another does NY style, while another does Sushi, with Indian down the street, and great BBQ joint nearby, a sub-style sandwich shot over there, and a nice coffee and bagel joint.

    There is nothing wrong with a libertarian society....within limits. And the same thing can be said for a liberal society where the social safety net is a little nicer, historic neighborhoods and buildings are preserved, and communities are planned rather than just growing organically. Ditto for a conservative society with more individualism, but some limits on public consumption, where religious voices are not just welcomed but encouraged in society, and where workfare is more common than welfare. I suppose one might even manage to figure out to get an anarchist society to function ok under certain conditions.

    It really is geographic proximity that causes conflict. What I see, hear, smell every day affects me a lot more than what happens across a State line. There is no "proper" maximum speed for interstates across the nation. Texas has stretches posted at 85 now I think. Utah has big stretches posted at 80 with most of our urban areas posted at 70, a couple of short sections are 65. I think Montana went a while with no posted daylight limit, just a "safe for conditions" requirement. But if Massachusetts believes 55 is the maximum safe speed, so be it...in the Bay State.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  21. #21
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    1. Tossed salad is a better metaphor.
    It is for what happens today when we are less interested in assimilating into any dominant culture but instead want to retain cultural identity. Problem is, unlike a salad where tomatoes and cucumbers don't seem to have any conflict, there are cultures that are incompatible next to each other with neither one being able to claim any moral superiority.

    Consider on traditional US work/sleep schedules vs the siesta schedule. Each makes perfect sense for where it originated. Short days in the north with cool nights vs long days in Mexico with oppressive heat early afternoon but nice temperatures as the sun recedes. But the two don't work well on top of each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    2. One problem I see with this: what happens when a state votes on a swing issue. Wins 50.1% to 49.9%. Is half the state expected to up and move? Why don't people that don't like guns move to Europe or Australia? How does that change anything?
    Maybe half the State moves. Or maybe on local swing issues you don't tend to have binary solutions. Remember, under proper federalism, enumerated rights are protected. So we're talking about lessor issues to start with. But on a local 50-50 swing issue maybe you're likely to see true compromise such that each side can live with it. Modern realities of ease of mobility and economics means that no State can go too far lest it drive away business.

    Strict blue laws are probably no more likely to make a comeback under federalism than would rent control.

    But at some point, a local majority should be free to set local culture in areas not explicitly enumerated in the constitution as individual rights beyond majority vote. If it is offensive for 60 or 80% of the population to impose limits on the conduct of 20 or 40%, how much more offensive is it for 20 or 40% to impose offensive conduct onto the 80% majority?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  22. #22
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The 2A seems to be excluded from these requirements.
    The 2nd amendment protects an individual right to own and bear arms.

    The 14th amendment protects all US citizens against infringements of their rights by the States. By a strict reading, these protected rights are those that are specifically enumerated in the constitution: Freedom of Religion and the Press, RKBA, trial by jury, right to vote at 18, no slavery, etc.

    It is every bit as appropriate for the feds to protect RKBA from State-level infringement as it is for them to protect freedom of religion, trial by jury, access to counsel, and any other enumerated right.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  23. #23
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Maybe half the State moves. Or maybe on local swing issues you don't tend to have binary solutions. Remember, under proper federalism, enumerated rights are protected. So we're talking about lessor issues to start with. But on a local 50-50 swing issue maybe you're likely to see true compromise such that each side can live with it. Modern realities of ease of mobility and economics means that no State can go too far lest it drive away business.

    Strict blue laws are probably no more likely to make a comeback under federalism than would rent control.

    But at some point, a local majority should be free to set local culture in areas not explicitly enumerated in the constitution as individual rights beyond majority vote. If it is offensive for 60 or 80% of the population to impose limits on the conduct of 20 or 40%, how much more offensive is it for 20 or 40% to impose offensive conduct onto the 80% majority?

    Charles
    I agree with what you're saying. But to me, the fact that it hasn't worked like that indicates a flaw in the system.
    I really don't see moving as an option for half a states population.
    What happens 100-200 years down the road? Some states populations will have drastically increased. Everyone in these states now have to live by the same rules, and the same problems will arise.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    I agree with what you're saying. But to me, the fact that it hasn't worked like that indicates a flaw in the system.
    I really don't see moving as an option for half a states population.
    What happens 100-200 years down the road? Some states populations will have drastically increased. Everyone in these states now have to live by the same rules, and the same problems will arise.
    The truth is, it did work quite well originally. I think we often forget how very different the various regions of the nation were among the 13 colonies. And on issues well beyond slavery.

    The War Between the States certainly changed the relationship between the feds and the States. But there were additional changes that added to federal power at the expense of States' diversity. The 16th amendment unlimited taxing power for the feds (aka income tax) and the 17th amendment popular election of Senators were huge.

    Think of the one-size-fits-all federal answers that were not technically mandated, but were coerced by tying compliance to receipt of federal funds that were originally extracted from the citizens of the States. 55 mph speed limit, 21 year old drinking age, and more recently a host of very unpopular school programs from NCLB to Common Core and even requirements on how special needs kids are handled in regular classrooms.

    As for population growth, let us remember how very mobile we are today. I lived in 4 States by the time I was 6 years old. I served an LDS mission to a 5th, and spent four years of college in a 6th. Summers during those college years were spent in internships is two additional States for the 7th and 8th State where I've lived during my lifetime.

    When I neared graduation and started serious job searching I very deliberately avoided even interviewing with companies located in hostile territory (east and left coasts). Even with that severe limitation, I ended up with job offers in 4 different States, 2 of which I had not previously ever lived in, but visited with the express intent of determining whether the combination of job and community was where I wanted to live at least for a few years as I started my career.

    I picked my State of residence quite deliberately based partly on the culture of that State.

    I know not everyone has quite the same options, but parents tend to raise children in their own culture and so those born into an area tend to be part of the dominant culture unless the parents foolishly migrated to an area whose culture they hated. (See liberal Californians moving to Utah or Yankees moving to the South, but neither group accepting the dominant culture.)

    It is possible that eventually you get a divided State and half the population is unhappy with the laws and culture. But that seems to be an order of magnitude less difficult problem--if and when it materializes--than what we already have which is most all of a nation upset about one-third of the federal mandates imposed on them.

    Admittedly, liberals are only recently unhappy because they were the ones imposing their views on conservatives for so long. But a few right-wing court rulings like limits on partial birth abortion, or allowing corporations and PACs to spend money to influence elections on equal footing with labor unions have kind of woken them up to this issue.

    Some have argued that the problem is "government". It isn't. The problem is what you've brought up in your OP: it is that people have different cultures and some of those cultures just are not compatible with each other. If we were all libertarians we'd have less conflict. But that is like saying if we were all conservative or all liberal we'd have less conflict. The real problem is how do diverse and incompatible cultures co-exist?

    The best solution I've ever seen is a little distance; Good fences make good neighbors.

    Some of this distance can be at the city level. In my area of the greater Salt City metro-area, you need a map to tell where one city ends and the other begins. But there are subtle and significant differences in the culture across these cities. How much and what kind of zoning. Density of housing. What kind of animals are permitted. How much commercial vs bedroom communities. Even what style of policing.

    County to county there are even larger differences.

    Most of my State lives in urban / sub-urban areas. Most of the land mass is highly rural or even wilderness. We are a very GOP State. But there are solid pockets of democrats. We are a highly religious State, but per capita have one of the largest homosexual communities in the nation (# 3 or 4 per capita if I recall).

    Yes, there are some Statewide laws (including RKBA, freeway speed limits, alcohol control, one of only two States to completely ban gambling, etc) that the liberals hate. But day to day they get to isolate themselves in their cities and neighborhoods and live pretty much as they see fit.

    I live next door to the only State with legalized prostitution. Across State lines, not really a concern.

    I'm not saying federalism is perfect. I'm just saying I think it works better than our current practice of the feds forcing a common culture on the entire nation. And I think it has a better track record of working than anarchy.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Some have argued that the problem is "government". It isn't. The problem is what you've brought up in your OP: it is that people have different cultures and some of those cultures just are not compatible with each other. If we were all libertarians we'd have less conflict. But that is like saying if we were all conservative or all liberal we'd have less conflict. The real problem is how do diverse and incompatible cultures co-exist?
    I don't think anyone has argued that government is the problem.

    I like this local control concept we're talking about. Let's run with it. Let's say my neighbors property is under his control. He lives there, in his own little jurisdiction. Since he's under his jurisdiction, but not mine, he decides how much tax he has to pay to himself, and then what it's used for. Me over here, across the state border (my yard), I'm under another jurisdiction. Over here, I have a different tax rate, and those funds are appropriated differently, too. Yeah, I think this'll work out just fine. Neato.
    Advocate freedom please

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •