DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**egexgfczc** · 10-25-2011, 03:56 AM

Good post, man.

One concern there would be that joint effort towards such as national security couldn't be adequately addressed, where co-ordination was impeded by any emphasis on state sovereignty. Since it appears that individuality is the chief concern here, any take on a constitution probably wouldn't be binding either. I'll accept that the inverted pyramid could be great for local affairs, but where national agenda is diluted to that extent, I have to wonder just how effective any national venture would be; such necessary projects as communications and transport for example. For another thing, it couldn't in itself address corruption, since you'd afford the same opportunity for it in reverse. In a sense, what you'd have is multiple big governments rather than one.

All in all, the inverted emphasis on state supremacy would necessitate an even greater need for a cohesive arbiter than exists at present, unless you're going for total independence of each state, as though they were each a nation unto themselves. By definition, that couldn't be The United States.

A better model would be a diamond-type distribution, whereby the process begins with your own example, but filters back down to state level, and in direct proportion to the extent of subscription. Of course that supposes a higher federal entity, but with decisions being passed for consideration against an agreed reference, with the final say back where the process began. This is all before we even begin to get into bureaucracy.

Okay.

The original idea of the United States is more similar to the European Union, in many ways, than to the current makeup of the USA. That is key. You cannot understand my take on this without first understanding that point.

So, the idea was that each State was a State. Hence the wording. The union and the federated government was put into place in order to resolve inter-State disputes, manage a uniform currency, provide a coalition-based large defense, and pay for infrastructure that was beneficial to all. It also established a bill of rights that was mandatory for inclusion into the union.

So, from the start, we need to treat Pennsylvania, where I live, as a Germany or a France, etc...

This system follows the pyramidal concept I have advocated, so far as I can tell.

10-25-2011, 03:56 AM	#11
egexgfczc Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 422 Senior Member	Good post, man. One concern there would be that joint effort towards such as national security couldn't be adequately addressed, where co-ordination was impeded by any emphasis on state sovereignty. Since it appears that individuality is the chief concern here, any take on a constitution probably wouldn't be binding either. I'll accept that the inverted pyramid could be great for local affairs, but where national agenda is diluted to that extent, I have to wonder just how effective any national venture would be; such necessary projects as communications and transport for example. For another thing, it couldn't in itself address corruption, since you'd afford the same opportunity for it in reverse. In a sense, what you'd have is multiple big governments rather than one. All in all, the inverted emphasis on state supremacy would necessitate an even greater need for a cohesive arbiter than exists at present, unless you're going for total independence of each state, as though they were each a nation unto themselves. By definition, that couldn't be The United States. A better model would be a diamond-type distribution, whereby the process begins with your own example, but filters back down to state level, and in direct proportion to the extent of subscription. Of course that supposes a higher federal entity, but with decisions being passed for consideration against an agreed reference, with the final say back where the process began. This is all before we even begin to get into bureaucracy. Okay. The original idea of the United States is more similar to the European Union, in many ways, than to the current makeup of the USA. That is key. You cannot understand my take on this without first understanding that point. So, the idea was that each State was a State. Hence the wording. The union and the federated government was put into place in order to resolve inter-State disputes, manage a uniform currency, provide a coalition-based large defense, and pay for infrastructure that was beneficial to all. It also established a bill of rights that was mandatory for inclusion into the union. So, from the start, we need to treat Pennsylvania, where I live, as a Germany or a France, etc... This system follows the pyramidal concept I have advocated, so far as I can tell.
	Quote