Separation in the Nation; embracing, indulging, and enabling it?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Some time ago, I started a thread that went nowhere - a book notice about a book called "The Sorting of America", in which the authors put forward the idea that americans are, compared with 30 years ago, to a large extent living in more politically homogeneous communities. The most striking statistic was a comparison between the 1976 and the 2004 presidential elections; the number of counties in which one party beat all other with at least 20%-points went up dramatically.

To a large extent this is due to self-segregation, people tend to move to places in which they are the majority (both politically and in life-style). The downside of it all is that the very homogeneous communities foster political extremism (in a place where the primary is the only competitive game, reaching out to the other side of the aisle is not a good move!), and that people living in those communities get a poorer mental environment, since they (except for the web) only experience their own ideas. Once something comes along from the outside which requires large-scale rethinking, then such single-thinking communities are ill-equipped. Also, when those people meet political adversaries for the first time - on the anonymity of the web - much nastiness ensues.

I found the arguments quite convincing as to why this sorting is bad, but what to do about it is another matter entirely.

Reading about Prop.8 has made me wonder if the nation´s best interests are not best served by local diversity, as I first thought, but instead by embracing self-segregation. Bear with me - I know that this sounds awful!

How about this idea. (I have toyed with it a bit, and I do not think that it is best thing possible, but sufficiently good so that it can serve as a discussion-starter.) Assuming the mantle of Swift, I suggest:

Let the populations of counties vote on individual rights, provisions in the constitution, and the applicability of SCOTUS decisions. you think?

Some limitations, though.
Do it like this: Any citizen of a county/state may petition to strike out a right granted in the constitution, a law previously passed in that country or state, a SCOTUS decision, federal law, or anything else that has carried the weight of law in that county/state. No petition may be worded so that it invents new legal territory, the petitions can only be purely reactive.

In order to pass, a petition of this type (which is not intended to interfere with any other local/state/national petitioning ability) must gather at least 67% of the votes and those votes should represent at least 50% of population eligble to vote. Should a petition pass, it will take power one year, not earlier, after the end of the vote-counting. Should a petition pass the public coffers of the county in which it passes must also be force to pay for -in full - a one-way trip from that county for any person who states that he does not like it. Such a person gets a free journey out for himself and all his belongings, but is not free to reenter the county until the petition has been repealed. Should a petition pass, it can not be revoked by an action of either house, executive order, or new SCOTUS decision - that would completely defeat the purpose of this suggestion. In order to limit the tyranny of the majority in a place where such a petition has passed, the passage of such a petition automatically triggers a change in the local police force - the local police force is fired with 2 year´s severance pay, and a new police force consisting of outsiders is brought in. This police force is payed for by local taxes, and must follow the local rules with exceptions as fleshed out below. The one-year waiting time is set so that people who otherwise live in living hell - or worse - could escape. The whole point is that people can have their wrongheaded ideas for themselves in their place, not that they vote minorities to be captive victims.

A very small list of stuff must be off-limits, though. Counties should not be allowed to vote that their citizens are forbidden to leave the county, there are not permitted to wage war, they may not pollute outside of their own borders, and they may not directly involve themselves with the affairs of outsiders, carried out outside their own borders. Other than that, they should be free to do whatever they want to themselves.

Imagine this in action: Some county in, say, Oklahoma, could revoke the 1st amendment within the county borders. They could do also away with church-state separation, and mandate some version of Christianity as a local county religion. Gun classes are mandated for all local kindergartens. Loving vs. Virginia is revoked, to say nothing of prop. 8. And so on. A lot of people would like to leave that place, and they could do so on county dime. That place would also attract some people from, say, California and New England, who would find it more to their liking. The neighbors to those people in CA+NEng would probably not miss their company all that much.
(Would not democrats all over the country rejoice, once such places are created and the cesspools start attracting their attendant ilk, away from dems?)

OTOH, some county in the SF bay area could revoke all laws pertaining to heterosexual marriage, making such an union locally ex-post-facto illegal. A bunch of local hets would leave, and their place would be taken by oklahoma gays. Everyone gets to live in their own little private heaven.

OK, people time to shoot down! Note: I harbor no illusions that laws such as outlined above will be enacted within the foreseeable future. So, responses of the type: Fat chance! It will never happen! are quite off the mark. A relevant response is one that deals with what would happen, should such laws be enacted.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

BTW: The gays made a major mistake in congregating in SF. By congregating there, they can affect county-wide legal landscape, but as we have seen not state-wide. Furthermore, the congregation has left large swaths of the rest of the county so gay-sparse so that they do not constitute a locally significant voting block, and bashing them is not only politically possible, it is even politically useful. Dumbass move on the gay part. They should have congregated to either Rhode Island, in which they could be such a large part of the local population as to run things, or to some state with reasonably small population (so they are not politically diluted in a sea of non-gays) which is also a swing state. California fails on both counts. Look at the example of Rajneeshpuram/Antelope for an example on how it should be done, gays.

[Lemonaide]

But you can't make it drink. Okay, that's an old expression, let me pontificate:

Let us go back in our minds to ancient times, when slavery was rampant everywhere in the world and people moved freely from one corner of the earth to the other, [sans passports], into grande cities such as Egypt, Rome, and Babalonia. There was a pretty good mix then ya! But, as civilizations crumble and fall, another arises..... alas......the New World.

In waves they came, settling upon new shores, bringing their wares and their tin. The nation is a conglomeration of people from everywhere. It is always best to allow the natrual flow to occur.... that is, let people settle into areas where their languages and mores are understood, their offspring venturing forth into new frontiers [college]. thusly acquiring the mores of other cultures and eventually it becomes Gumbo.

Right now there exists both communities: the community of the mix and the community of the same - such as Japan. That nation, though small does not open their doors to other cultures and for this reason: they want National Harmony. Wa- which is exemplified in their tedious Tea Ceremony, which the gays all want. I tell unto you, good people, it is mere artifice, but so be it.

In more recent times, our nation has tried a program called: Busing. Wherein small children were herded into into dangerous neighborhoods in order to acheive racial balance. This experiment with small children failed and everyone was sent home for supper. This artifical means of 'supporting' low income neighborhoods was nothing more than a transparent show of the true feelings of the elders towards their charges, the meaness of spirit was self-evident. While we may have been created equally, the ingredients got separated in the bowl, thus forming a glob. Which freely speaking, flows into global, which means that everywhere in the world, people face this very same issue. Which tells me, that AT LAST!!!!! America need not tackle this first!!! Not only that, but when you make a good Gumbo, the flavors all blend in, but one can still see the shrimp, the sausage, and the rice just put into the bowl. Therefore, to stretch this analogy to its' utmost, we need to be different but we need to blend. We don't exactly harmogonize everything, we tend more to toss, like a salad. Even the human body, for example, uses nutrients through a transport system in different places for different things.

etc etc etc[in short - there doesn't seem to be anything that a person can do, it all seems to be worse, people move around for many reasons: War, Famine, Disease etc, and they stay as long as they can work.

[I_luv_saber]

It's a very interesting tangent, I grant you, but in the end a rather odd one I think.

At that point, you really are not a country anymore, but rather a loose confederation.

And the thought of embracing rather than fighting self-segregation kind of seems like rather than fighting against drowning in the raging sea, kick back and let Davy Jones take you! I don't see the benefits outweighing the drawbacks in such a situation.

Consider this: A black man has lived his entire life in any given state or county. He's running the family farm that has been in the family since sometime after the end of the Civil War. The community of any given state/county passes a law stating that black people can no longer own property/lose other rights. Even on the county dime, leaving all you've ever known and losing something so dear to you is emotionally traumatizing to say the least! And, given the system, not leaving is practically not an option, unless he intends to operate a guerrilla war against the system with the local black community. This system, I say, would rather put the entire country in a sate of chaos and hellish atmosphere rather than the intended effect of "private heaven" for all.

Interesting thought though, I grant you.

Personally, I think most of the time it will work itself out, though there could be steps taken to encourage a mix of people rather than encourage such segregation. On a national level, I'd put forth that the electoral college system doesn't help at all in this regard.

[ESLyon]

In order to limit the tyranny of the majority in a place where such a petition has passed, the passage of such a petition automatically triggers a change in the local police force - the local police force is fired with 2 year´s severance pay, and a new police force consisting of outsiders is brought in. This police force is payed for by local taxes, and must follow the local rules with exceptions as fleshed out below.

Why not just have a police force that is dedicated to the enforcement of the constitution of said county/province? When the constitution changes, the police force enforces it. The police who do not wish to support it either A: suck it up or B: move out within a year like everyone else who doesn't want to support the new change. Bringing in a whole new police force AND paying the old one two years of severance pay would be a huge financial toll, especially since if something like this were put into place, these kind of changes could be frequent.

This is actually something I have thought might happen (one county or state basically sesceeds (sp?) from their respective state or country and makes their own law because there is such a majority that wishes to change the constitution.) Not for a long while granted, but the emergence of radical groups on both sides of almost any issue, largely separated by geographical boundaries, has led me to believe this.

As to whether or not it SHOULD be passed... I am pleading the 5th, while I still can . I really don't know, there are obvious and potentially dangerous consequences, but there are also potential benefits such as reduced hate crimes and discrimination (there can't be any discrimination against gays in a county where gays aren't allowed to live is there?).

[lindajdunn]

I see so many problems with the suggestion that I barely know where to begin.

1. What about jobs? Suppose your job is located in an area that votes to become (for example) Wicca and you're Amish and work at a local factory (yes, many do). You now must move? To where? And do what? Jobs are scarce.

2. What about the farm that's been in your family for 200 years. You now must sell it and find another farm?

3. What about the coffee shop that you own (not Starbucks) that provides a living for your family? You now sell out and look for another place to live and hope the population doesn't prove as wacko as your local community, which just voted to ban alcohol, coffee, tea, and other substances.

4. What about the teenagers whose parents decided they cannot leave and now they're stuck in a community whose educational system no longer teaches any form of science, including higher level math, which doesn't teach foreign languages or world history, etc. and thus they cannot get into college?

5. What about the old folks, stuck with a house they cannot sell in an area filled with idiots who just elected to become total vegan and now they cannot obtain their required prescription medicine because there is no alternative to the capsules they've been taking?

And I could go on and on and on.

I live in an area where people have values dynamically opposed to my own but it's cheaper here than it is 10 miles away, where the political climate matches my own. It would cost at least $10,000 just to move my belongings and then there's the matter of selling the house in an area where there are many foreclosures.

[Epee_Pox]

I dispute your first principle.

What's wrong with allowing people the freedom to live wherever they please, and people then choosing to live among people with whom they share similar culture, priorities and community outlook?

[I_luv_saber]

In and of itself, nothing. But it does tend to create more extremism, I'd wager. You think the gents that watch Fox news and nothing but Fox news are going to be terribly receptive or understanding to some more liberal ideas? If you are submersed in and know nothing but one line of thought, you tend to block out others.

Again, I agree there's nothing wrong with it per se, at least from an individual point of view. But on a national point of view, it probably does work against the greater good. I'll go out on a limb here, though, and say that:

1) This is not likely a problem that can be solved via laws or a change to the system. In fact, as a person, or a group, you canNOT fix it. Which leads me to...

2) These problems work themselves out naturally. We do go through times when people congregate together... but events will naturally change the normal flow of emigration. Think of the California or Alaska Gold Rush, the Great Depression, The Dustbowl, etc. These events massively changed the culture by introducing more foreign ideas, customs, and people into the community.

It's all too complex to control with a system, but it usually tends to work itself out.

[Bayou Bum]

Isn't what you are talking about what was intended when the US Constitution was written? Certain rights were guaranteed on a national level and everything else was to be left up to the individual state and local governments to create their own laws. There are still many differences in laws around the country but the federal government continues to erode states rights beyond what was ever intended. Some of this has been good, but some hasn't, depending on your personal beliefs.

It is just my opinion but I see the EU taking the same path. Over time, each country will lose more power to the EU and become nothing more than individual states like in the US. It may just be part of the life cycle. It is a simplification, but first comes unification for common defense, then common currency and commerce. Then, as referenced in the above posts, pressure for uniform laws to allow immigration to different localities without drastic changes in laws and eventually old borders have little meaning.

Just random thoughts ...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


ILS: you did not explcitly state if it was me or Lemonaide that you are responding to. I will assume that it was me, but please consider spelling out such things in excruciating detail.

Consider this: A black man has lived his entire life in any given state or county. He's running the family farm that has been in the family since sometime after the end of the Civil War. The community of any given state/county passes a law stating that black people can no longer own property/lose other rights. Even on the county dime, leaving all you've ever known and losing something so dear to you is emotionally traumatizing to say the least!

Sure it would an upset. OTOH, would it not be traumatizing to belong to an ethnic group which 67% of the local population wants to take all rights from? What is the lesser of two evils here? The one-year waiting period is put in there so as to ensure that people do not have to flee overnight. As an added bonus, it gives bigots the chance to experience a years in which they gets ridicule and scorn, but not any of the attendants benefits of their vote. Delayed gratification, if enforced, might be a teaching moment.

And, given the system, not leaving is practically not an option, unless he intends to operate a guerrilla war against the system with the local black community.

A guerrilla war can work if the guerrilla combatants can melt into the local population at will, so that the foreign military force can not discern between guerrilla fighters and civilians when the former are not actively in combat. None of that applies in the anti-black example that you posited, so the guerrilla option is not a good one. OTOH, your response shows why a police force from outside the county ise useful to enforce laws, however strange, rather than the local police force participating in a free-for-all.

This system, I say, would rather put the entire country in a state of chaos and hellish atmosphere rather than the intended effect of "private heaven" for all.

Entire country? Would it? Remember that I suggested a 67% threshold, which is quite steep. For comparison, how large a percentages of all US. counties give one POTUS candidate at least 67% of all votes? Without having checked it, I would guess that those counties are in the significant minority. Granted some counties which are swing in the POTUS election might vote to take away rights for minorities, and many solid counties will not vote away minority rights, but I would guess that there would be a positive correlation. My pr4ediction is that there would be some counties which have voted to rescind national decisions. Some will do so on nationally-speaking minor matters, and not much will come out of that. Some will do so on major hot-button issues (dumping 1st or 2nd amendments, outlawing either homo- or heterosexuality, etc.) In those cases, those counties will in all probability lose a lot of people who are useful to the local community, but do not want to live among such people as their neighbors have chosen to be. A significant proportion of those counties will start going worse, economically speaking, when their populations are more one-tracked. That should give the majorities in counties who were contemplating such votes pause. Also, the bad economy should be an object lesson to those who voted out their neighbors, but by then it is to late. Suck it up, bigots! You had your way, now live with your choice! Of course, there will be some groups which are so far-off so that they are willing to knowingly dump their own local economy and drap heaps of scorn upon theirselves, just to get away that hated law. Chances are that such people are such a PITA to their neighbors where they are local minority, so that if they all ship of to a place of their choice in which they become local majority - well, then they have just made all other counties better places to live. Good riddance!

Interesting thought though, I grant you.

Thanks! that is what I strive to do with most of my threadstarts. I am one of the most prolific threadstarters, and in most of them I try to start interesting discussions which, at least in theory, could be resolved.

Personally, I think most of the time it will work itself out, though there could be steps taken to encourage a mix of people rather than encourage such segregation.

Why do you think that it will work itself out? Data suggests the contrary. The number of counties with landside POTUS election results is increasing all the time, and very many HofR seats are really lopsided - in several cases even uncontested. A host of other statistics shows that americans tend to self-segregate, and that the trend has been increasing in recent decades. (Check out the book "The Sorting of America" if you wish to see more data) What evidence do you see of any spontaneous fixing of this problem? What "steps taken to encourage a mix of people" do you envision as both a)politically possible, b)at least somewhat acceptable to a large proportion of the population, and c)likely to further the goals of mixing and forming mutual acceptance (I will settle for mutual non-hatred)? Remember that school busing was not liked by everyone!

On a national level, I'd put forth that the electoral college system doesn't help at all in this regard.

I am completely with you on this one. The EC does not anything good that could not be done at least as well by other electoral systems, but I have written about that in many other threads.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[I_luv_saber]

ILS: you did not explcitly state if it was me or Lemonaide that you are responding to. I will assume that it was me, but please consider spelling out such things in excruciating detail.

I tend to skim over those posts as most people do, but I realized later I probably should have been a little clearer. Mea Culpa.

Sure it would an upset. OTOH, would it not be traumatizing to belong to an ethnic group which 67% of the local population wants to take all rights from?

Yes, but the key part of that sentence is wants to take all the rights from. The current law is set up so these people's rights are indeed preserved and are not infringed upon. The law simply tries to apply tolerance to all, not acceptance. There is a difference.

What is the lesser of two evils here? The one-year waiting period is put in there so as to ensure that people do not have to flee overnight.

In my opinion it is fundamentally wrong for a government to be able to, by vote or otherwise, force a group of people to move from their homes. Japanese concentration camps anyone? Not to mention I can see a horrible ability for corrupt abuse of such a system.

As an added bonus, it gives bigots the chance to experience a years in which they gets ridicule and scorn, but not any of the attendants benefits of their vote. Delayed gratification, if enforced, might be a teaching moment.

If the majority of the local community is voting for this, I don't think they will be the victim of extreme scorn. Unless, of course, you mean on a larger scale, as in the nation scorning the county.

A guerrilla war can work if the guerrilla combatants can melt into the local population at will, so that the foreign military force can not discern between guerrilla fighters and civilians when the former are not actively in combat. None of that applies in the anti-black example that you posited, so the guerrilla option is not a good one

.
This was meant to be sort of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, not exactly a serious comment.

OTOH, your response shows why a police force from outside the county ise useful to enforce laws, however strange, rather than the local police force participating in a free-for-all.

This idea in and of itself is and interesting one, even used in todays system. I would be curious though if that would outweigh the loss of vested personal interest a local police force may have (which can be a good or bad thing). On the one hand, it could sort of help against corruption I suppose... but you also lose that true care for the community in which they live that local forces have (or may indeed increase corruption... "it's not MY community, why should I care if it becomes corrupted?").

Interesting tangent, but I think the two need not come together in a package deal.

Entire country? Would it? Remember that I suggested a 67% threshold, which is quite steep. For comparison, how large a percentages of all US. counties give one POTUS candidate at least 67% of all votes? Without having checked it, I would guess that those counties are in the significant minority. Granted some counties which are swing in the POTUS election might vote to take away rights for minorities, and many solid counties will not vote away minority rights, but I would guess that there would be a positive correlation. My pr4ediction is that there would be some counties which have voted to rescind national decisions.

Firstly, I suppose I did exaggerate in saying the entire country. Secondly, if this high threshold is meant for it to be so hard for action to be taken, would it really accomplish your said goal of a private heaven for all? My point was really that it would simply not accomplish that goal, and indeed work against it in the end.

Also, if the end effect would be so little, what would the point be in converting to such a system?

Some will do so on nationally-speaking minor matters, and not much will come out of that. Some will do so on major hot-button issues (dumping 1st or 2nd amendments, outlawing either homo- or heterosexuality, etc.) In those cases, those counties will in all probability lose a lot of people who are useful to the local community, but do not want to live among such people as their neighbors have chosen to be. A significant proportion of those counties will start going worse, economically speaking, when their populations are more one-tracked. That should give the majorities in counties who were contemplating such votes pause. Also, the bad economy should be an object lesson to those who voted out their neighbors, but by then it is to late. Suck it up, bigots! You had your way, now live with your choice! Of course, there will be some groups which are so far-off so that they are willing to knowingly dump their own local economy and drap heaps of scorn upon theirselves, just to get away that hated law.

But would those positions not be filled by others moving to said county because their beliefs correlate with them?

Chances are that such people are such a PITA to their neighbors where they are local minority, so that if they all ship of to a place of their choice in which they become local majority - well, then they have just made all other counties better places to live. Good riddance!

This seems yet another point in the system that tears the country apart and turns it into a confederation of independent states rather than a unified country with states in it.

Why do you think that it will work itself out? Data suggests the contrary. The number of counties with landside POTUS election results is increasing all the time, and very many HofR seats are really lopsided - in several cases even uncontested. A host of other statistics shows that americans tend to self-segregate, and that the trend has been increasing in recent decades. (Check out the book "The Sorting of America" if you wish to see more data) What evidence do you see of any spontaneous fixing of this problem?

How long has this data been seriously recorded? As I pointed out, Americans (and others) DO tend to self-segregate... but large-scale events tend to mix everything up again. Again I point to the Dustbowl, Goldrush(es), perhaps the Great Depression. Such event force people (or highly encourage) to move en masse to different parts of the country. From being a Californian and having seen a bit of the culture here, I can tell you that we have been forever effected by 1) The Gold Rush, and 2) The Dustbowl. Such things not only boosted the population, but vastly altered our culture by providing an influx of "fresh faces". I just about bet this self-segregation tends to work the same way as politics, swinging back and forth as a pendulum. It's just over a longer period than what the data can really reveal at this point.

What "steps taken to encourage a mix of people" do you envision as both a)politically possible, b)at least somewhat acceptable to a large proportion of the population, and c)likely to further the goals of mixing and forming mutual acceptance (I will settle for mutual non-hatred)? Remember that school busing was not liked by everyone!

Well, I don't think politically possible is a requirement here given we've already accepted this whole premise as being totally impossible, unless you recant and feel that it is indeed possible? Otherwise, why apply such a standard to my comment and not your original statement?

Secondly, I'll give it a think and come up with some details on what I think would accomplish said goals. I probably should rephrase and say rather than put more laws in place that encourage said goal, to remove the laws and de facto that work against it.

[Sean Butler]

I'd like to raise one simple objection to the idea in the OP. Human rights, like free speech, are not something a group should ever have the power to generally revoke. Were we to allow the revocation of rights under such a system, we could also revoke the right to change that system and be stuck with whatever system replaced it.

The US constitution guarantees the People ALL rights of free men. The Bill of Rights describes the limitations of the powers of government over the people. We are not granted rights by these documents, our already pre-existing rights are preserved and defended by them.

[oiuyt]

For comparison, how large a percentages of all US. counties give one POTUS candidate at least 67% of all votes? Without having checked it, I would guess that those counties are in the significant minority.

There are 3115 counties listed in the information I found. Of those, 137 were at least 67% in favor of Obama and 777 were at least 67% in favor of McCain.

So 914 of 3115 (or ~29.34%) of all counties voted homogeneously enough in this past Presidential election to be over your threshold.

source data: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

Note that data is as of November 16th, so there might be a few results missing.

-B

[dcmdale]

Peter...

I don't think that your idea is as strange or as anti-American as some of the other respondents have indicated. As Epee_Pox alluded, there is a strong thread of this kind of thinking throughout American political philosophy and constitutional history. The fact that this history has been largely (and actively) suppressed within the American educational system for the last several decades doesn't change that history.

Much of the goal of the federal system and the guarantees of the Bill of Rights with respect to the states was precisely to allow states the right to maintain their distinctive characteristics, legal sensibilities, and moral differences.

Perhaps the clearest example of this is in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." As commonly taught, this taken to mean that the intent was to establish religious freedom throughout the United States. That's wrong, of course. The reason that Congress was prohibited from making such a law is because that would be contrary to state establishment laws. Several states had officially established religions well into the 1800's and laws effectively favoring historically majority denominations into the 1940's and later. It wasn't until Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) that the first amendment establishment clause was held as applying to the states through an expansive reading of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment. The other first amendment rights were extended from applying only to Congress to the states around the same time.

While I don't see these decisions being reversed, the myth that these rights are the historic legacy of the constitutional fathers has really only come about in the last 30-40 years. At the time of the constitutional convention, that had a legitimate deep fear that the majority traditionally Anglican states would attempt to create an established religion at the federal level based on the Westminster Confession. Non-Anglican states such as Maryland (Catholic), Pennsylvania (tolerant based on Quaker beliefs), and Rhode Island (tolerant based on Baptist beliefs) as well as citizens of nominally Anglican states were concerned that more restrictive states might impose themselves on the other states. My ancesters were freelovers (and, yes, that means what it sounds like) and left (were booted from) 1635 Puritan Boston to help found Conneticut (but were not invited to stay) and ended up moving ahead of "reputable people" throughout New England to settle in far upstate (what became) Vermont. There they helped establish a community of like minded people in an environment that would make the Haight look like Sunday School. And their attitude was, "If you don't like it, there is the whole rest of the continent to settle on. You don't need to be here."