6 ms·

Seems to have worked rather well though.

by jjtwixman 5mo ago

eru 5mo ago
If it works so well, perhaps delegate authority even more centrally. To the UN or so?
- jjtwixman 5mo ago
  I mean you said it yourself, it's a compromise. Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great. The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have worked out not so badly. Now there's a retarded paedohpile in office starting random wars and of course all bets are off. The US political system actually probably is quite shit, but I don't think it's about centralisation vs decentralisation, but electing an unaccountable king every 4 years is just a retarded and easily exploitable system.
  - eru 5mo ago
    > Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great. Be careful not to be anachronistic. When the US was a young country, before telegraphs and railways were widespread, most people's primary interface with the government was perhaps their municipality or at the highest level perhaps their county. > The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have worked out not so badly. I am not so sure. Different people in different parts of the country have different preferences. Much easier to satisfy them, if you don't centralise too much. > [...] but electing an unaccountable king every 4 years is just a retarded and easily exploitable system. Much better to elect 3,143 kings, one for every county. If you don't like the one your neighbours (and you) voted for, just move to the next town over.
    - macintux 5mo ago
      "just move" is not always a simple act for the most vulnerable in society.
      - philwelch 5mo ago
        You’re right, it’s much easier to replace the entire federal bureaucracy.
      - eru 5mo ago
        Moving counties is almost infinitely easier than moving countries, or replacing the entire federal bureaucracy to your liking (instead of the liking of that other guy).
    - jjtwixman 5mo ago
      What an interesting and amusing idea. A king for every country. Anyway.
      - eru 5mo ago
        County, not country!
        jjtwixman 5mo ago
        Sorry, I couldn't even type it out it would seem, it was too silly. Anyway, you sound like me when I was about 19, lots of abstract theories and ideas without any ties to the real world we find ourselves in. I don't regret it but I'm glad I grew out of it . It's not stuff to be taken seriously. All the best.
        eru 5mo ago
        Oh, I put my money where my mouth is: I moved to Singapore.

Seems to have worked rather well though.

eru 5mo ago

If it works so well, perhaps delegate authority even more centrally. To the UN or so?

jjtwixman 5mo ago
I mean you said it yourself, it's a compromise. Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great. The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have worked out not so badly. Now there's a retarded paedohpile in office starting random wars and of course all bets are off. The US political system actually probably is quite shit, but I don't think it's about centralisation vs decentralisation, but electing an unaccountable king every 4 years is just a retarded and easily exploitable system.
- eru 5mo ago
  > Giving the states free reign to terrorise their populations didn't work out so great. Be careful not to be anachronistic. When the US was a young country, before telegraphs and railways were widespread, most people's primary interface with the government was perhaps their municipality or at the highest level perhaps their county. > The relatively strong federal government of more recent times however seems to have worked out not so badly. I am not so sure. Different people in different parts of the country have different preferences. Much easier to satisfy them, if you don't centralise too much. > [...] but electing an unaccountable king every 4 years is just a retarded and easily exploitable system. Much better to elect 3,143 kings, one for every county. If you don't like the one your neighbours (and you) voted for, just move to the next town over.
  - macintux 5mo ago
    "just move" is not always a simple act for the most vulnerable in society.
    - philwelch 5mo ago
      You’re right, it’s much easier to replace the entire federal bureaucracy.
    - eru 5mo ago
      Moving counties is almost infinitely easier than moving countries, or replacing the entire federal bureaucracy to your liking (instead of the liking of that other guy).
  - jjtwixman 5mo ago
    What an interesting and amusing idea. A king for every country. Anyway.
    - eru 5mo ago
      County, not country!
      - jjtwixman 5mo ago
        Sorry, I couldn't even type it out it would seem, it was too silly. Anyway, you sound like me when I was about 19, lots of abstract theories and ideas without any ties to the real world we find ourselves in. I don't regret it but I'm glad I grew out of it . It's not stuff to be taken seriously. All the best.
        eru 5mo ago
        Oh, I put my money where my mouth is: I moved to Singapore.