[p2p-research] Abundance Destroys Profit [was: Tick, tock, tick, tock… BING]

[Ryan Lanham]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:56 PM, J. Andrew Rogers
<reality.miner at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Interesting ideas 250 years ago.  Now rather silly...as you imply.  Of
> > course people have been saying it since at least the 1950s. Ironically,
> with
> > the new budget operations, the Senate has grown in power and so has
> > seniority. Seniority tends to be more likely in small states. Thus, we
> have
> > empowered people from minor states to run our government
> disproportionately
> > when they were already disproportionately in charge.
>
>
> The obvious solution is to restrict the Federal government to its
> intended role.


I'd rate that as a highly improbably outcome.   Frankly, I'd be for it.  It
isn't going to happen. If it did happen, the center of the country would be
impoverished in a generation.

This way, no one will have to worry about senators from
> small States micro-managing the lives of people 2,000 kilometers away.
> Of course, the reverse is true as well. Some of the larger ecological
> disasters in the mountain West were created by policy forced on the
> region by clueless politicians in New England, applying patterns from
> their locales and ignoring local advice.
>
>
I tend to agree.  It goes in both directions.  I'd be much happier with much
stronger states...but it isn't going to happen...let's be clear...the trends
are strongly in the other direction and have been, particularly since Teddy
Roosevelt.


> A big part of the problem is the idea that the US can be governed as
> though it is a homogenous monolithic country. Far too many people in
> politics think the prevailing provincial outlook in their neighborhood
> has some kind of relevance to the rest of the country in the absence
> of any evidence.
>

Again, agreed.  That's why I have been saying disintegration is all but
inevitable.  Particularly at the end of cheap transportation...if such an
end occurs.  The US has become brittle by becoming
Washington-centric...particularly in the very undemocratic way it has done
so.


>
>

> > The electoral college
> > is downright silly.  Even in 1800 people knew it was silly.  So the US is
> > effectively ruled by our most backward and small states...West Virginia,
> > South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, etc.  California and NY are relatively weak
> by
> > comparison.  Odd to say the least.
>
>
> Non sequitur.  The President has no jurisdiction over individuals,
> only the States. Even though the States have equal representation in
> the Senate, the votes for President of the States is *still* weighted
> for population.
>

Each state is winner take all...that makes puny places matter
disproportionately to their votes.  It has also completely skewed population
distributions...right wing people leave Vermont...left wing people leave
Utah.



>
> Most Americans do not know that the President and Executive have very
> little authority over individuals. The Federal executive operates in
> US states at the pleasure of both the executive of the State *and* the
> county sheriff.


These issues were settled in 1865 and in the Supreme Court.  These are
standard parts of any constitutional law text in the US...long settled.  Not
sure what you are getting at...but it isn't the case and hasn't been since
the 19th century.

Frankly, I wish what you say were true. Issues of Federalism in the US are
profound...but largely settled in a legal sense.  Sadly, the states lost.
There really hasn't been a meaningful 10th amendment case...ever.  The
Reagan era Supreme Court (e.g. New York v. United States) tried to turn this
around a bit...got nowhere.  It was Sandra Day O'Conner's big idea.  Any
power in this arena relates to the Commerce Clause...and there isn't much.



> The last part surprises people, but it has been upheld
> in Federal court many times; a county sheriff can revoke the ability
> of Federal agents to operate in a county at any time for any reason. A
> similar but slightly more complicated relationship exists with the
> States. Just because the State governments allow the Federal
> government to operate in their State does not imply that the Federal
> government has the right. In practice, when a State gets touchy (every
> decade or two some States will pull rank over some issue) the Feds
> just bribe them with giant bags of "free" money.
>

Never heard of such a thing in 3 PhD level courses on Constitutional Law I
have taken...I'd like to see a local sheriff exercise any power over a Fed.
He she would be immediately arrested.  Huge amounts of case law on this in
any Federalism Constitutional Law text used standardly in law or public
administration programs in the US.

But the bribe part is right.  It is pork flows from big states to small
states arranged by local senators.  The recent healthcare circumstances
showed Louisiana selling a vote for 310 million.  This is old and standard
Senate politics. Ever wonder why so many big military bases are in the
South?  So many national parks in the West?  The sale was always a bribe for
some national policy or other.


>
> (And honestly, the US should be so lucky as to have a modest firewall
> between the Federal government and the gross incompetence and
> malfeasance that is the hallmark of the governments created by e.g.
> Californians.)
>

One or the other works for me.  Either be France, or be the EU...dont' be
something in between.  But the EU is getting much stronger...it will get
stronger still..headed toward something like the 20th century US...which is
too bad for Europe.  Same with Canada.  Same Australia.  Local in politics
is weaker than it has ever been...globally.  So if we are going local...the
politics sure hasn't pointed the way.  Personally, I'll always opt for
strong local.  It just never holds.  It used to not hold because of
reformers...now it doesn't hold because of conservatives.  Both were equally
wrong in my view.  The US and African Americans would have been much better
off without a Civil War.



> > There really isn't a good democratic constitutional system around now.
> The
> > US system relies on the president who is increasingly powerless over the
> > Senate.  Those enamored of Obama are finding rapidly just how naive they
> > were.   Another element of the perfect storm...governments unable to
> change.
>
>
> Is the Swiss system any good?  It seems to function reasonably well,
> though I know very little about the details.
>

The Swiss system...is America in 1771.  It's really a bunch of loosely
affiliated countries.  Spain is best IMO.  They have a strong central system
with reasonable distributions of power.   South Africa also has a very
interesting and modern system.  Still, I don't think there is a modern
democracy right now...the British system is very democratic...but it is
prone to heavy civil servant control.  Some would say that is best...India
is the British system taken to its logical extreme...very democratic...very
bureaucratic.


>
> While I agree there aren't any really good examples of a
> constitutional system in practice right now, there is nothing wrong in
> principal with having a strong US Senate. The US Senate is arguably
> *the* primary organ of the US Federal government. The President is not
> even supposed to make substantive decisions, and judging by what
> happens in parliamentary (and other) systems I would say this is a
> good thing. The US was very intentionally designed to avoid any
> quasi-autocratic democratic outcome.
>
>
>
Personally, I think the Senate has been a disaster.  It is the biggest block
to a Progressive US.  It has empowered the stupid and backward forcing New
York, Florida, Texas and California to negotiate with Mississippi, Nebraska
and Idaho.  I can see no sense in that.  I agree Federalist 10 and 51 were
well argued...for 1780.  They aren't relevant now with 310 million people
mostly concentrated in a few urban areas.  Regardless, it isn't going to
change.  I accept the US system as a good one...but very backward.  Whether
it is fragile is an interesting question...but there are far more
interesting ones.  My own dissertation now in progress is on Federalism...so
I respect the topic as complex and unsettled.  Probably 40% of all political
science/political economy and public administration students in the US are
working on this in some way continually and have been for 50 years.  We
aren't much further along.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091213/2cfd1417/attachment.html>