(03-12-2019 01:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2019 12:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ah, so you're just pointing out how our system of government works, where representatives from states are elected to federal offices to legislate and run the country.

I guess you also want to stop Texas from controlling the other 49 states?

No, I want Texas to secede (Texit?) and run themselves.

Would you then have issue with people elected from Houston trying to change state laws that would affect people in San Antonio?

Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

One flaw in your paradigm Lad. Texas *is* a constituent sovereign with powers of a sovereign. Houston (or any other city) is *not* a constituent sovereign with co-equal powers of the state it is in.

The 'problem' is that OO understands the explicit dichotomy in co-equal sovereign powers and how many seemingly wish to simply ignore that concept that is inherent in the base document. Your comment simply ignores that.

The problem is not with representative government, it is with the whitewashing of the concept of limited central government that is part and parcel of the cornerstone of the Union. And that whitewashing of that concept is actually undertaken almost explicitly by one side of the political spectrum in the United States.

But is it? Isn't it more that Texas is part of a country composed of states, where other states can propose legislation that is passed that Texas doesn't want to adhere to?

You are correct in the statements bolded above. But while true, they utterly fail to address (or even touch on, for that matter) the concept of limited central government is that is inherent in the Constitution. And the problem if the continual (self)-inflation of that power bubble.

As to your question, what does 'it' refer to in your question? I have no clue to what concept you are asking that question of, tbh.

Quote:I think the issue OO has isn't with the limits of central government, it's central government period.

I fail to see where you dig that last sentence up from lad. I find it odd with your broad subscription to what OO's issue is in light of your recent complaint that you are 'defending ideas that you never stated' (or somefink like that).

I find your translation of OO's statement of 'what he said' into something far different to be rather odd.

Turning back to your original dual choice:

Quote:Trying to figure out if you have a problem with representative government or the sheer size of the US and how the federal government is made up officials with competing interests.

You conveniently ignore in your (incomplete) options the concept that the Federal government has grown way past the idea of a limited central government, and that growth has come at the direct expense of independent sovereign powers of the states themselves.

The problem is neither of your 'options' fits the bill.