That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard

>writing laws on a state by state basis is stupid and divisive

So I guess we should leave it to the federal government to write traffic laws for all 50 states

Are you British?

State governments exist for the sake of efficiency and balancing power

Wouldn’t it be fucked if the federal government had all the power over every state?

Hmmm that sounds authoritarian

HOW DIFFERENT CAN ROADS BE?!

The only thing that should affect traffic laws is the weather in any given area at any given time, with the exception of Florida, that generally means the further south you go, the less you need to worry about snow in the winter time.

And as far as federal government controlling the entirety of it’s nation, it appears to have worked for France unless they also have a new state system I’m unaware of.

Hmmm that sounds authoritarian

France is tiny compared to the US

Also that’s retarded

What if the government goes like “hmm let’s have a nationalized speed limit”

That changes based on weather

Let’s also have the fed worry about petty crime because that won’t be a logistical nightmare

Can’t wait to see the bill for a nationalized police force

STOP TYPING MORE THINGS I HAVE TO MAKE A RESPONSE TO PLEASE IVE BEEN AT IT FIVE MINUTES AND IM STILL NOT DONE

Like I said; how different can roads be that you need to deligate speed limit laws to states?

And aye; France is tiny, but Canada isn’t tiny compared to the U.S, and as far as I know, our province system is pretty much for the sake of breaking up what industries are where.

Besides, simply because France and Canada have federal law systems rather than state law systems doesn’t mean they can’t have those same free speech laws that the States have. Laws are not binary to a system. As conservatives on my facebook keep saying, the Nazis eliminated homelessness with their socialist policies, that doesn’t mean they weren’t fascist. That proves to me that laws and policies aren’t locked to any system in particular. The US doesn’t need to have states to have free speech in their constitution.

And I’m STILL NOT DONE AND I HAVE PIZZA IN FRONT OF ME

Canada is unlikely to adopt free speech laws like the United States has not because we have a federal system, but rather because most people in Canada draw a line between free speech and hate speech. I don’t, but if you’re calling for violence against anyone, that’s generally considered hat speech in Canada. It’s not something I agree with, but to say that Canada is authoritarian because we have a federal system is not the case, and to say that a federal system cannot adopt absolute free speech is absolutely incorrect. It makes even less sense to say that the three are in any way linked.

Now I want my pizza

Cold pizza

Okay but the difference between the US and Canada is that Canada has a dramatically smaller population which makes it easier to govern under one body

And you can say you have free speech on paper, but you wouldn’t really if you had such a system in the US

The population is too big and diverse and not every demographic can get influence in the federal govt

State and local governments are the best way to represent local interests

And look at how underrepresented Quebec is in the scope of Canadian policies

And I’m not necessarily talking about free speech it’s just more convenient to levy some powers to state government for the sake of efficiency

I brought up roads because it’s so unimportant when considering the rest of the fed’s agenda

Also France and Canada technically have free speech but not in the same way as the US

They just have it because they’re granted by the government

The bill of rights cannot be infringed upon

In France and the UK and Canada, you only have freedom of speech because you assume the government is benevolent enough to let you keep it, but they can (and do) take it away at any time

One of the biggest reasons the US has this level of freedom is because of how easy it is for citizens to participate in legislatures via state government

I’ll be a minute, we just got a shipment of rocks and other junk for the driveway

*another minute, I just finished eating

@nah ⛓ Tell it like it is

Phuket

Fucket?

PHUKET ROYAL

I’m gonna be as minimalistic about this because I honestly just want to play PUBG Mobile at this point

>free speech on paper
I don’t disagree that our free speech is technically not free speech, in fact I myself have described it as “free speech, *conditions apply”

>Quebec underrepresented
Fair enough, as of recently, Quebec is having trouble with having its voice heard on Canadian policies, but Quebec has always had a fragile relationship with the rest of Canada.as near as I can tell, any time they were heard by the government, they wanted absolutely everything to be overhauled and tailored to their needs and wants. In law class, I specifically remember that there was a controversy during or just after the Cold War that Quebec wanted to stop putting English on their road signs and shops. Canada has required since that road signs at the very least have the two official languages of Canada on them regardless of the province. There inlies the problem; Quebec in its current form is treated like any other province as it should be in an egalitarian society, however if Quebec had it’s way, they would be a sovereign nation that recieved the benefits of being a Canadian province. As I view it, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

>not necessarily free speech
Again, fair enough, I just use free speech because it’s one of the biggest staples of an open society. If you can say what you want and not get shot in the street by the Government for example, that to me would be the biggest indicator that a state was not authoritarian.

>roads
I agree that they’re the least of a state’s problems, but if there’s a federal system that is supposed to control the big things like immigration, and the states control the small things like roads, but if the state system wants to fulfil its purpose more effectively, I think it should be the other way around; the local populous should be deciding the bigger issues rather than road laws and the feds should look at the cracks in the road.

>free speech not the same
I also agree.

>bill of rights
As it should be

>government not as benevolent with free speech
Agreed, Canada and the UK have arrested people for saying things that should fall under free speech as free speech should be known: free.

>state government brought about freedom
This is the one I disagree with; the freedom was brought about through colony heads writing a document to stand in direct defiance of the British occupation and oppressions. I remember my father watched John Addams and that the head of New York was against the revolution because of the British fleets just inside firing range of the shoreline. That kind of thing would have had to be taken into consideration regardless of whether or not they asked New York what they wanted; it is the nature of warfare and in a revolution, warfare is necessary.

I HAD TO SPLIT THAT UP