PT Polls: Should there be a federal government?

[Continential]

The opposite of my previous poll.

[S019]

Yes, devolved government is very bad to say the least. Medieval Europe never got anything done and was constantly fighting with each other. Something like that is probably what would arise. To use a more modern example, without a strong federal government multinational states like the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia would have never held together. You can see that because as soon as the constituent countries could get out, they did.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yes, devolved government is very bad to say the least. Medieval Europe never got anything done and was constantly fighting with each other. Something like that is probably what would arise. To use a more modern example, without a strong federal government multinational states like the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia would have never held together. You can see that because as soon as the constituent countries could get out, they did.

Medieval Europe is not remotely comparable to a modern federal state or to any modern state at all. Your modern example is also not great since Atlasia is neither a communist dictatorship nor a multinational state.
Said that, I don't think the federal government should disband, obviously.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I guess I'm glad that polls like these are practically worthless, because I would be very worried if 40% of players wanted to have just regions.

Or hell, even no game at all. But I'd like to think those people have fully moved on.

[Utah Neolib]

Congratulations you’ve just awakened the anarchists

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, devolved government is very bad to say the least. Medieval Europe never got anything done and was constantly fighting with each other. Something like that is probably what would arise. To use a more modern example, without a strong federal government multinational states like the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia would have never held together. You can see that because as soon as the constituent countries could get out, they did.

So your best defense of strong central government is two recent historical examples of people being oppressed?

It is precisely because they were so overbearing that people wanted out. One extreme breeds another.

[S019]

Yes, devolved government is very bad to say the least. Medieval Europe never got anything done and was constantly fighting with each other. Something like that is probably what would arise. To use a more modern example, without a strong federal government multinational states like the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia would have never held together. You can see that because as soon as the constituent countries could get out, they did.

So your best defense of strong central government is two recent historical examples of people being oppressed?

It is precisely because they were so overbearing that people wanted out. One extreme breeds another.

The point wasn't that, the point was more so to show that it is very hard to hold together diverse groups of people without a strong central government. Once said government was toppled, you get a series of what were basically nation-states, yes some like Kazakhstan weren't, but the generalization works well enough. Anyways, if a better example is wanted, the United States which is a multinational state composed of many different ethnicities including whites, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans, has held together because of strong federal government. During times when weak federal government was desired and states' rights were prioritized, the nation threatened to tear itself apart numerous times, and then actually did so. The massive expansion of government following Reconstruction greatly stabilized the nation, and perhaps more importantly no serious secession attempts have been made since.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, devolved government is very bad to say the least. Medieval Europe never got anything done and was constantly fighting with each other. Something like that is probably what would arise. To use a more modern example, without a strong federal government multinational states like the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia would have never held together. You can see that because as soon as the constituent countries could get out, they did.

So your best defense of strong central government is two recent historical examples of people being oppressed?

It is precisely because they were so overbearing that people wanted out. One extreme breeds another.

The point wasn't that, the point was more so to show that it is very hard to hold together diverse groups of people without a strong central government. Once said government was toppled, you get a series of what were basically nation-states, yes some like Kazakhstan weren't, but the generalization works well enough. Anyways, if a better example is wanted, the United States which is a multinational state composed of many different ethnicities including whites, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans, has held together because of strong federal government. During times when weak federal government was desired and states' rights were prioritized, the nation threatened to tear itself apart numerous times, and then actually did so. The massive expansion of government following Reconstruction greatly stabilized the nation, and perhaps more importantly no serious secession attempts have been made since.

That was because it was too far the other direction obviously. It is not an endorsement of unitary government, though.

[Leinad]

Congratulations you’ve just awakened the anarchists

How many people here self-ID as anarchist? Genuinely curious.

[Utah Neolib]

Congratulations you’ve just awakened the anarchists

How many people here self-ID as anarchist? Genuinely curious.

Probably like 3
not that many

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The former United States did not "prioritize states' rights" during the 1850s, Jesus Christ. Scott v. Sanford is arguably the most anti-states' rights decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Please stop parroting Lost Cause talking points, thanks.

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

[Former President tack50]

The former United States did not "prioritize states' rights" during the 1850s, Jesus Christ. Scott v. Sanford is arguably the most anti-states' rights decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Please stop parroting Lost Cause talking points, thanks.

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

Tbf there is an argument that Westphalian sovereignty reduced the amount of wars in Europe and across the world? (Though I doubt S019 was thinking along those lines)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The former United States did not "prioritize states' rights" during the 1850s, Jesus Christ. Scott v. Sanford is arguably the most anti-states' rights decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Please stop parroting Lost Cause talking points, thanks.

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

Tbf there is an argument that Westphalian sovereignty reduced the amount of wars in Europe and across the world? (Though I doubt S019 was thinking along those lines)

Um, I would start out pretty skeptical of that claim considering the 18th century in Europe was more or less an endless string of wars, though it is admittedly not my area of expertise —but yeah, it really has nothing to do with the point S019 is making either way.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The former United States did not "prioritize states' rights" during the 1850s, Jesus Christ. Scott v. Sanford is arguably the most anti-states' rights decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Please stop parroting Lost Cause talking points, thanks.

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

You know if I weren't so distracted by my fast approach Birthday (Saturday), I might have come up with a similar line of response.

But yes indeed, the pre-Civil War period was certainly inconsistent on the whole state's rights thing. Expediency as always triumphs over principle or legality in such periods. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The former United States did not "prioritize states' rights" during the 1850s, Jesus Christ. Scott v. Sanford is arguably the most anti-states' rights decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Please stop parroting Lost Cause talking points, thanks.

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

Tbf there is an argument that Westphalian sovereignty reduced the amount of wars in Europe and across the world? (Though I doubt S019 was thinking along those lines)

Um, I would start out pretty skeptical of that claim considering the 18th century in Europe was more or less an endless string of wars, though it is admittedly not my area of expertise —but yeah, it really has nothing to do with the point S019 is making either way.

I know someone who claims to be a expert on 18th century Europe, you don't like him but I know him.

[Peanut]

The former United States did not "prioritize states' rights" during the 1850s, Jesus Christ. Scott v. Sanford is arguably the most anti-states' rights decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Please stop parroting Lost Cause talking points, thanks.

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

You know if I weren't so distracted by my fast approach Birthday (Saturday), I might have come up with a similar line of response.

But yes indeed, the pre-Civil War period was certainly inconsistent on the whole state's rights thing. Expediency as always triumphs over principle or legality in such periods. 

https://twitter.com/atlasiagm/status/1394455299877113856?s=19

Unrelated but happy birthday in advance

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The former United States did not "prioritize states' rights" during the 1850s, Jesus Christ. Scott v. Sanford is arguably the most anti-states' rights decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Please stop parroting Lost Cause talking points, thanks.

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

You know if I weren't so distracted by my fast approach Birthday (Saturday), I might have come up with a similar line of response.

But yes indeed, the pre-Civil War period was certainly inconsistent on the whole state's rights thing. Expediency as always triumphs over principle or legality in such periods.  

https://twitter.com/atlasiagm/status/1394455299877113856?s=19

Unrelated but happy birthday in advance

Hilariously, I actually had both of fried chicken and iced tea on my birthday.

Edit: As for the GM event and the advance birthday wishes, as I noted in the other thread, it was this past Saturday. Though I see how that could be miscontrued from "fast approaching" in my previous post, it was fast approaching from the context of the 13th when I made my post responding to S019 about the Civil War period.

[Continential]

Bumping due to recent threads.

[marcuszodiak]

The federal government looks outward so the states can look inward. Better love story than Twilight.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Also, lol @ contending that Medieval Europe was a war-torn mess due to decentralized governance while conveniently ignoring what happened once nation states began to form in the seventeenth century.

He's also ignoring mass-murder and starvation by strong central governments in the 20th century too.