Archinect
anchor

The Balkanization of America

160
FrankLloydMike

back to gorilla warfare.. remember the shortlived, but glorious banana revolt of 1873?

Aug 1, 06 12:33 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

love that movie puddles, but if you really want to learn about human nature, then you must visit the kinsey institutute at the indianastan university in the picturesque village of bloomingtongrad.

Aug 1, 06 12:43 pm  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

bloomingtongrad...already sounds more attractive (no wonder those russians kept renaming things)

Aug 1, 06 10:04 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell

I beleive vado actually is a blomingtongrad.

Aug 1, 06 10:13 pm  · 
 · 
brian buchalski
Mother? It's a pleasure to meet you mother, but I have to go back to the forest... forever.
Aug 1, 06 10:20 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

i am steve mcqueen, i am cool, dead and from indianastan.

Aug 1, 06 11:22 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

i am james dean. i am cool daddy, dead and from indianastan...

Aug 1, 06 11:24 pm  · 
 · 
howardite

I vote nay on turning america into a group of republics...how about we strengthen our fed. government before we just sort of give up and take us back a century or two...

Aug 2, 06 3:14 am  · 
 · 

i'm torn, howardite. i like the idea of a strong federal government, but it seems the direction it's going is oligarchy. ; )

Aug 2, 06 7:30 am  · 
 · 
FrankLloydMike

I like a strong central government in the context of a reasonably sized republic, but America is huge... third in land area and population, I believe (or soon to be according to the trends, anyway). in all seriousness, I think the federal government has just become so bureaucracized and overstretched that it no longer serves the demands and needs of the majority of americans. I don't think this is a conspiracy point of view, but just how things work in an enormous, industrialized, ultracapitalist country, but the federal government these days is more concerned about strength abroad, at which it is failing, to protect the interests of America's corporate interests. My view is that it is doing this out of the belief that protecting those interests is vitally important to the US economy, but there are more pressing issues... properly funding higher education since a well educated citizenry is imperative to a strong and productive nation, universal health care, help for our nation's poor, better infrastructure and planning.... these are things a properly functioning federal government could handle, but instead it is caught up protecting corporate interests and as the local city council basically of 330 million people (+/- a few million). And the interests of folks in Texas are often vastly different from those in New Hampshire, and so on. In all seriousness, I've lost a lot of faith and hope in the ability of the American government to reform itself. Something that helped America gain its footing, the stability designed into the form of government--the three branches, that the entire government never goes up for a vote at once, and less legitimate measures--I think is also what is leading to its current and future stagnation. In view of this--and with the highest respect for the cultural and philosophical basis of America, and for the cultural, historical and to some degree ideological bonds that bind all Americans together--I am increasinly seriously interested in a group of smaller republics, that work peacefully together and share some government services, in a similar fashion as the EU. I really feel as though the American federal government has failed, is failing and will continue to fail to serve the American people properly, and thankfully those who wrote New Hampshire's second constitution in 1784 knew what to do about that...

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

and besides, I'd love to see Jeanne Shaheen on the $10 bill!

Aug 2, 06 7:57 am  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

downsizing is not synonymous with regression

i'd view it as more of a re-calibration of our collective modern experiment. even our name, united states of america, implies a collection of independently minded bodies whose primary shared concern is one of geography, hence the "of america" piece. the emergence of the powerful federal government that we now take for granted is, i believe, the result of numerous (and controversial) court cases and outright "power grabs" during times of crisis. it's been a while since i've had any american history, but i suspect that a careful reflection of the facts would support my argument.

if a strong federal government was the intent of the early americans, then why not name ourselves something more definitive like, for example, the republic of america and adopt a more explicit constitution?

Aug 2, 06 8:55 am  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

steven, all governments/nations are oligarchies...they just come in different flavors

Aug 2, 06 9:05 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

indianastan is making a fortune by leasing the toll roads! plus we dont need the government to protect us. indianastan has a major deterrent to any incursions by chicago dwellers lookin to take our beautiful duned filled lakefront. back off chitown!deterrent

Aug 2, 06 9:15 am  · 
 · 
4arch

The people who would be hurt the most by a dissolution of the federal government are the poor and minorities who happen to live in "red" states.

It's very possible that the more conservative "republics" would institute Christianity as their official religion, severely restrict rights for minorities, women, and gays, ban immigration of all types, completely outlaw abortion, privatize (corpratize) social secuity, medicare, public schools, etc., and move toward flat taxes or other regressive taxation systems that disadvantage the poor.

Aug 2, 06 9:38 am  · 
 · 
Chili Davis

Sounds good to me. Michganistan forever!

Aug 2, 06 9:44 am  · 
 · 
FrankLloydMike

bryan, I think you're right and that's truly unfortunate, but at least they wouldn't be forcing it all on the rest of us, and maybe without money from places like New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California and so on, they'd realize the regressiveness of their policies of lifestyle control. Maybe not though... at the beginning of the twentieth century, socialist parties were strongest in places like Oklahoma, and they were just as devoutly Christian back then... being socialists, I would argue, they were probably more Christ-like.

anyway, interestingly New Hampshire's constitution also states:

The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto

Aug 2, 06 9:47 am  · 
 · 
cf

I'm not cool. Cool is for the West Coastistans.
I'm from Long G'ilslandistan, but, I work in The Citystan and I summer in the Hamptonistans.

Aug 2, 06 9:54 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

probably the most famous (after michael jackson) indianastani...he is responsible for our tourism slogan- Survive Indianastan!

Aug 2, 06 10:04 am  · 
 · 
Chili Davis

Is that Mic Foley from WWE's twin brother or what!?!

Aug 2, 06 10:30 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

Hello? That's Rupert who was born in Michiganistan by the way!

Aug 2, 06 10:49 am  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

yeah, i thought that was mankind/mic foley too.

bryan4arch, there's probably some truth to your analysis, but i also suspect that these backwaters would soon start losing population to other, ostensibly better-run republics/states/nations/etc.

i'm not sure if the underprivileged would be the most harmed by a lesser federal presence in its current incarnation, but there's little doubt in my mind that it is primarily the corporate interests of the elite that have the most to gain by the efficiencies and economies of scale as provided by a large federal umbrella.

Aug 2, 06 10:58 am  · 
 · 
Chili Davis

Rupert = Dudelove.

Aug 2, 06 11:07 am  · 
 · 
vado retro

puddles=the thomas jefferson of the present day.

Aug 2, 06 11:14 am  · 
 · 
Chili Davis

Since Rupert moved me to a WWE tangent, I must add that the Steiner brothers are from Mighigan, and they would make great defense secretaries.


Aug 2, 06 11:29 am  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

the steiner brothers actually went to my high school. although they were both gone by the time i was there, they are from a large extended family of reichsteiners who live in the area. a few of their cousins were classmates.

Aug 2, 06 1:30 pm  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

oh...and there's a house up there that supposedly belongs to one of the steiners. you'd have to see it to believe it but it's basically a mcmansion in a log cabin style and sitting next a farm field with a lawn littered with all terrain vehicles.

Aug 2, 06 1:35 pm  · 
 · 
Chili Davis

You grew up in Bay City? Me too! I actually had one of the Reichsteiners for a PE teacher in high school.

Aug 2, 06 2:47 pm  · 
 · 
gruen

Texas people, Austin and Houston, Texas people, I was born in Michigan

Aug 2, 06 3:01 pm  · 
 · 
vado retro

cannot wait til s-a-t-u-r-d-a-y michiganistanders!!!

Aug 2, 06 4:52 pm  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

that's exactly how i remember it, vado

Aug 2, 06 4:56 pm  · 
 · 

just read in some liner notes this morning that the ramones love the bcr and wanted to cop their s-a-t-u-r-d-a-y chant with a chant of their own. result: 'lobotomy! lobotomy!' with a heavy backbeat.

but that's newyorkistan for ya.

Aug 2, 06 5:26 pm  · 
 · 

sorry, 'loved'. rip.

Aug 2, 06 5:26 pm  · 
 · 
brian buchalski

great story steve. but i'm afraid that new york will never be backwards enough to qualifiy as a "stan"

chili, i was born in bay city...but i'd probably say that i didn't really grow up till i made it to boston some twenty years later ;) ain't that a great town though? birthplace of madonna and inspiration to 1970's scottish rockers, the most well-known local real estate developere is man who made his initial money promoting fights (art dore of the "toughman contest" fame) and more draw bridges than you can shake a stick at. popular local excuse = "i was late because i got caught by a boat" highest per capita concentration of bars in the state, bay city used to be described as having a bar & a church on every street corner. my favourite local joke: was the quickest way to get from poland to africa? river road (aka m-13)...hmmm, thinking about those old made-rite potato chips and i almost miss the place.

Aug 2, 06 6:56 pm  · 
 · 
Chili Davis

I still make it there about once a month. The town is growing up quite well. And the bar scene won't let you down. Art Dore just opened up a new one as a matter of fact. Michigan rules!

Aug 3, 06 8:19 am  · 
 · 
treekiller

'nother election, different results:



we should send the republicans to live in this america since they have tried to create something like this...

but then pruned introduced me to strangemaps and I can't resist reposting some of their other finds.




Nov 14, 06 8:18 pm  · 
 · 
snooker

I'm extemely dissapointed as there is no mention of The First Lady Of Michigan. Maddona. Now she would rock as a First Lady.

Nov 15, 06 8:09 pm  · 
 · 
treekiller

what those citizens of the old world forget is that we have immigrants from everywhere here in america, Today!

Nov 15, 06 8:49 pm  · 
 · 
Apurimac

This thread is awesome, and frankly i look forward to living in the city/state of Manhattanchester. But on a serious note, I think the core of the american ideal, of the free individual would be very threatened by the dissolution of the union, because like many have touched on in this thread there are alot of people living in certain "red states" that would wind up in corrupt, overbearing theocracies and alot people in "blue states" living in corrupt socialist nanny states (like Manhattanchester, I think Brooklyn would form its own state). One of the main reasons we went to war with the south was to essentially protect the core american ideal of "all men created equal", "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness" that the south was denying its slaves (not to say the north wasn't doing the same, but whatever). To that effect the federal government was ensuring the liberty of minorites living in unelightened states, and the process repeated itself with the civil rights movement. Maybe thats one of the reasons for having a federal government, to protect the people from the states, and the reason we have strong state governments is to protect the people from the union. The real reason i post though is while I agree with bryan completely about how minorities in red states may get screwed by seccesion, I've been entertaining the idea of a flat tax on retail goods and services to replace the federal income tax for a while now, and while i consider myself to be on the left of center in the political specturm, I often wonder why all my fellow leftists have such issue with the idea of a flat tax. I know there are plenty of liberals here so would any of you guys care to explain to me coherently why its so bad? I like to hear both sides of any arguement before I make up my mind on something.

Nov 16, 06 11:19 am  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

Apurimac, I think you're desribing a consumption tax alternative (goods and services consumed) -- which is not a flat tax alternative, where all citizens would automatically pay a flat tax fee of, say, 15 percent or whatever of their income.

To answer your question, a true blue leftist will not tolerate any limits on taxation.

Nov 16, 06 12:13 pm  · 
 · 
liberty bell

In a consumption tax alternative, would architectural services be taxed? Didn't we fight that battle a few years ago?

sanya, thank you for posting. I've lived all over this country and traveled it extensively and I think the incredible diversity of points of view we have is amazing, and to our benefit. This is also why I encourage people to go somewhere else for school - to immerse yourself in another region for several years is as much an education as school will be.

Nov 16, 06 3:58 pm  · 
 · 
Apurimac

Thanks rim, I do see how a flat income tax favors the rich. I would hope a flat tax on goods and services would not include architectural services. I think the examples i heard of were simply taxes on retail goods/luxury items (excluding food and basic clothing).

Nov 16, 06 9:54 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

"Thanks rim, I do see how a flat income tax favors the rich."

That's not the case. A flat tax would simply tax all at the same rate. Your hated rich would pay the same rate as the poor, but by sheer arithmetic, the rich would still pay far more than the poor. This would actually be one step closer to fairness for all. Under the current so-called progressive system of taxation, the more money you make, the higher the RATE of taxation. Right now the poor pay 0 - 10%, then you have the rate increasing up through 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35. Does that really sound fair?

My point is that the left likes the current "progressive" system because it offers the best chance at unlimited taxation of the most productive citizens. Consumption and flat tax alternative are viewed by the left as steps toward cutting off their lifeblood.

IMO, setting up a tax debate within a "rich vs. poor" framework will never lead anywhere.





Nov 17, 06 9:56 am  · 
 · 
crowbert

Rimmy my boy, there is a reason you only hear millionaires touting the flat tax and never the blue collar workers. In a flat tax system the rich will pay a whole lot less than poor, relatively to their income. Plus, where do stock options come in? Investments, capital? How do you put the flat tax on those? (This never seems to come up when people say how simple a flat tax is.)

The idea behind a progressive tax rate is that the burden of the state is placed on the people whom it will affect the least. I should also point out, at least in this rigged game, the rich the ones who benifit the most from the state. Indeed, a progressive tax rate sounds fair when you look at the whole picture - anyone living below the poverty level should not pay any taxes, period. They need the money for living, and any money the state takes from them only makes them more hamstrung and dependent on aid from the state - every free-marketer believes that the government is always less efficient than a free market (I don't necessarilly agree) so this should be obvious - except that it doesn't help the rich, so they're not for it. This rich vs. poor as being pointless is only brought up when the poor are the ones doing the complaining. The rich use arguments "welfare queens driving cadillacs" and "rampant welfare fraud" (both of which are fictions) when argueing that the laws need a-changing.

Not to mention, there's a lot of other taxes around aside from income, including a greater shift to payroll taxes, which hurts the guys who work for a living as opposed to the gilded class who invest for a living. I would also strongly argue Rims offhanded comment that the rich are the most productive members of society is false - production has increased thes last fifteen years not because we have fewer CEO's doing more work, but rather the average worker doing more work - The richest people are the most profitable, which is definitely not the same thing as productive - see Enron, WorldCom, Halliburton/KBR...

So, when you look at the whole picture and not a simple division calculation, asking the people who have gotten so much from this country and society to increase their contribution with their ability to do so sounds not just fair but also right.

Nov 17, 06 1:33 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

Crowbert, from my libertarian perspective, you say more things that I fully disagree with, and many that are simply in error, than I have interest in responding to. You've bought fully into the collectivist rhetoric.

Suffice it for me to say that you and I are at diametric ends of the argument. In a nutshell, if you have two, but I have six, you feel righteously entitled to several of mine. Bullshit.

Nov 17, 06 5:00 pm  · 
 · 
crowbert

Uh, no Rim - not me taking from you, our government (the one of, for and by the people) taking from all of us, each in accordance with our means to help build an infrastructure upon which we live - harldy a collectivist society. That's a distinction Libertarians never seem to grasp (until they want help from the government.) Hell, Britain is too socialist for me.

To use an analogy, lets say that there is a heavy load we need to carry up a hill and to make it work everyone needs to carry, lets say averaged out, 20% of their body weight. Sounds fair, sure. But what about the overweight guy who is at a loss of breath just climbing the hill? Sorry, I guess he should of thought of that before he had fat parents. That will teach him. Except now we can't carry the load up the hill and we all suffer. So if there's a skinny rock-climber guy and he can easily carry 100% of his body weight, why is it wrong to help out using resources he has in abundance?

I don't expect Rim Joist to see that, living as he does in a winner take all, might makes right, simplistic libertarian society as in there something is either 100% good or 100% bad. Since I disagree with him, all of my ideas must therefore be equivallent to marxism or whatever other ism a person disagrees with. I do not see myself diametrically opposed to Rim Joist (though certainly I am on the other side of the line.)

Nov 17, 06 6:48 pm  · 
 · 
Apurimac

Well rim, i guess im a libertarian too, frankly i wish i could be anarchist but this is the real world. I believe in small government, but I also believe that a free market is healthiest when the competition is strongest and wealth is not collected on a more corporate level, one fish should never get too big. I don't like the idea of a flat income tax, i do not like the idea of an income tax at all. Progressives feel that government can be a force for good, that we can use taxes to do good things. Yet when i look at a government with a track record like ours (or any government) I simply think that is not the case. The government is corporate america's lapdog, its deeply corrupt and it will never achieve the lofty goals of a socialist society. Europe's been flirting with socialism for years yet i don't see it going anywhere because socialist governments collect too much power and power always corrupts. Although i could be wrong about Europe, but all I see is france tearing itself up plus latent social issues prevalent all over the continent. I think all americans should not have to pay exorbatant taxes to a government that refuses to function. It does some good, but i think it does more evil. Gives us our money back i say, ane WE'LL figure out how to spend it, even if it is on spinning rims or huge TVs, its better than bombs and broken government systems.

Nov 17, 06 6:57 pm  · 
 · 
Urbanist

california people, california values, california republic :)

Nov 18, 06 2:23 am  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

Crowbert -- curiosity got the best of me... so, you expecting me to agree with Stein and Buffet, why?

Anyway, your "load up the hill example"... I'll point out that what I reject is that you are FORCING people up that hill, and DICTATING how much load they must endure. While you are OK with that, I find it the root of an evil. Your ideas are VERY "progressive": the more I got, the more you will take, thank you very much, because you know better how to use it.... my ideas are more "usage" oriented, and ask why you think you should get to send me up the hill just because you and your friends want to go.

Public schools are a great example. They have no original constitutional provision, and yet citizens with no children and citizens with many children attending are similarly taxed. You'd see that as a collective good. I'd see it as an exercise of force.

You bristle at being labeled "Marxist" and "collectivist", but your posts essentially define and condone both.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need..."
-- Marx, 1875

It's not that I don't understand your argument -- hell, it's textbook -- it's simply that I'm disagreeing with you 100%. But, hey, in the spirit of collective good will, I will say that I think you deserve to get exactly what you're asking for -- good and hard.





Nov 27, 06 2:59 pm  · 
 · 
crowbert

I don't expect you to agree with Stein and Buffett - I know you don't - But I also don't think anyone (except maybe you) would call them Marxists either. I just thought it was amusing that two people who have excelled at the free market share the same opinion (at least on this subject) as I.

Look, I used an analogy of rolling stuff up the hill - it was a task that NEEDED to get done. Why? Doesn't matter, in the an analogy it was simply a NEED. But lets extend it a little further and say it does matter. You need to roll those rocks up a hill to form a levee, without which everyone will be flooded and there will be loss of life and resources. Now, as a libertarian, you can say "I'm not doing it, you're forcing your will upon me! I will not be a Marxist!" and you can be a flooded libertarian. (Thinking about it, you're seem to be more of an Objectivist) You have sacrificed your land (and possibly even your life) along with all your neighbors so that you could be an independent man. True, you do have have your unencumbered will to paddle around on.

In that you cannot fathom a progressive american government, and understand its core difference from Marxism or a collective state then there is no hope for you. As for anyone else who is slogging through this thread, we know that there are those of us out here who think that there is a role for government in helping us work on things we can't do individually, and while we may disagree on how to best acheive it, none of that makes us collectivists or Marxists. Collectivism is that everyone contributes everything to the state, the state then divvies it up the way they see fit - which is how you seem to view all governments' intentions, if not actions. That's wholly different than what I mentioned earlier, the analogy and the central principals of American Government. Until you realize that contributing (in relation to your means) to a group made up of, for and by the people so that we can tackle problems together that we could not tackle individually, you will be stuck in your flooded home, very independently.

Nov 27, 06 3:40 pm  · 
 · 
Rim Joist

So your premise is that right out of the gate I'm not smart enough to build out of the flood plain?...

Anyway...

Marx-ist and collective-ist also typically refer to tendencies along a relative spectrum of influence. So, I'm obviously not saying that you, Stein, or Buffet are pure Marxists or pure collectivists or pure anything. I'm simply using the adjectives to describe which end of the spectrum you seem to favor.

A statement like "...Until you realize that contributing (in relation to your means) to a group...", etc.,..... is quite accurately charaterized as tending toward collectivism.

Yes, pure collectivism is different than the currently so-called "progressive" system -- now, anyway. I'm saying the two are already merging and moving toward the collectivist end. As taxes continually increase, it's a fair statement. So what is your personal limit? How much tax is enough? How much common good is enough? You cannot/won't draw that line -- and that's the problem.

Back to rolling stuff up a hill -- sure, let's say it is something that NEEDS to be done. In your estimation, government is the best (only?) means toward necessary organization of multiple individuals. I disagree. Let me introduce you to something that outpaces the government every time: the private sector.

And by the way, an "unencumbered will" ain't nothing to sneeze at...


Nov 27, 06 5:45 pm  · 
 · 

Block this user


Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

Archinect


This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.

  • ×Search in: