Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#261

Post by whimsicalism » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:09 PM UTC

nxor wrote: post #228

giantg2 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Political power should absolutely be proportional to population represented though." That's your opinion. The opinion of people in Wyoming is likely different. What the facts would show if you look into the history of why the Senate was necessary, it would show that smaller states wouldn't have joined, and would be justified in leaving. The real problem is that the scope of decisions at the federal level has gotten…

I interacted with someone from Wyoming once. She made this point: Wyoming has a lot of Native Americans, and it struck her as contradictory when people would say "native Americans are underrepresented" alongside "Wyomingites are overrepresented." Of course there's nuance but it was interesting in any case.

Wyoming has 16k native americans. California has 762k native americans (if you agree with self-id, which I don't). Your friend clearly must be in favor of disenfranchising these native americans if she thinks her Wyoming vote should count for 67 native american votes in California.

In general, I don't find the idpol defense of 67x relative voting power for Wyoming's particularly compelling.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#262

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:09 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #89

whimsicalism wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need something that essentially represents each whole state as a unit. You can have a group of people that represent each state as a unit. Political power should absolutely be proportional to population represented though.

"Political power should absolutely be proportional to population represented though." That's your opinion. The opinion of people in Wyoming is likely different. What the facts would show if you look into the history of why the Senate was necessary, it would show that smaller states wouldn't have joined, and would be justified in leaving. The real problem is that the scope of decisions at the federal level has gotten…

If we truly believed in a capitalistic system, wouldn't the US become a hyper aggressive competiton to make the most citizens settle in their given state? It would bring down home prices, offer amenities, fight cut throat for the best labor laws, and so much more.

But it seems like we gave up and focused on a republic when it came to this matter instead.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#263

Post by cthalupa » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:10 PM UTC

macintux wrote: post #239

CalChris wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Roman Senate was a unicameral form of government. Bicameralism principally comes from Britain, the country which we were formerly a colony of and which gave us our dominant language, legal code, …. That said, again, WHY is the Senate absolutely one of the best features of government?

My take on some of the Senate's advantages: - No gerrymandering - Longer terms mean that senators can spend more time governing, less time running for election, and they can take a longer view on the impact of their decisions - Filibuster means that a tiny minority cannot force legislation through

The filibuster is not a feature inherent to the Senate and could be removed at any time with a simple majority, just like it has been done for the filibuster for several types of nominations, and was threatened during this past shutdown.

I also assume you meant tiny majority, as the minority cannot force legislation through regardless of whether the filibuster exists or not.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#264

Post by mothballed » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:11 PM UTC

hattmall wrote: post #257

mothballed wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One in my state is solar panel legislation. You can't install solar panels in AZ without a permit and building plans and roof plans. That's all well and good in the city, but here in bumfuck nowhere I built a house with no building plans or roof plans. Why exactly did the majority of city dwellers pass this law without even considering people like me in bumfuck nowhere, who have as much or higher utility for solar pa…

But who in bumfuck is going to stop you exactly? Are you talking about a grid-tie system, where you feedback to the power company? My experience in rural areas is that after the initial approval for utilities if needed, no one is coming back to inspect anything.

Oh the power company doesn't care. But counties use satellites to find solar panels or other unpermitted installations.

If it's not noticeable via satellite imagery then yeah, probably nothing will happen.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#265

Post by cheschire » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:11 PM UTC

Aperocky wrote: post #240

mmoustafa wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative democracy. The founders simply had no option, you had to pick a person, put them in a carriage, and send them to the capitol to do your bidding (also why electoral college exists for reporting votes, but I digress). I always wonder what they would’ve created if everyone had a device in their pocket to send their preferences directly to the capitol at the spee…

Could it actually be worse?

I absolutely think so. Can you imagine if voting was influenced directly by whatever memes were on Tiktok?

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#266

Post by toss1 » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:12 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #102

whimsicalism wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware of the reasoning for the design -- although I will point out that the notion of an extremely constrained federal government was controversial then, hardly consensus among the founding fathers. But the design clearly is not fit for where our society is or the direction it is moving, people have much more affiliation with the national entity than with the state entity, and it simply does not make sense t…

If you are from a smaller state, you would think it would still make sense. Otherwise the rural concerns just get steamrolled by the urban concerns. The point still stands about trying to level out concerns between smaller and larger states, which is why it was created with years of debate and a majority even if it wasn't consensus.

>>rural concerns just get steamrolled by the urban concerns

But effectively giving dirt a vote clearly isn't the solution. When voting maps are made weighted by strict land area they look one way, but weighted by population, they look entirely different, e.g., [0]

Or, should Wyoming, with a population of 587,618 as of 2024 [1] really have as many senators as the 39,431,263 people in California [2]? California has nearly five times the rural population of Wyoming [3], yet all rural and urban Californians get only 1.4% of the representative power of anyone living in Wyoming. Does a Wyoming resident really deserve 67X the representation of people in California?

I absolutely think rural concerns must be heard and met, but this setup is not right, and is clearly not meeting those concerns.

[0] https://worldmapper.org/us-presidential-election-2024/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

[3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/rural-california/

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#267

Post by cthalupa » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:13 PM UTC

hemp_is_canvas wrote: post #65

mothballed wrote: post #46

Even the legal weed state senators were voting for this. It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. This ensures profits are captured by the wealthy rather than small family type setups. Wealthy former hemp companies will shift to the "legal" weed market,…

76/100 senators voted to keep this provision.

Legal weed senators were voting for it because their constituents include people growing legal weed. The hemp product market competes with these constituents.

The anti-weed senators were voting for it because they are anti-weed.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#268

Post by kulahan » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:13 PM UTC

par1970 wrote: post #223

whimsicalism wrote: post #4

The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body. There’s no getting around this and it will structurally just get worse and worse. Simply no way something like it exists 200 years from now, it is probably the biggest flaw in the US political structure right now.

Are you arguing this? (Premise 1) If a country has 350 million people, then the Senate will produce unrepresentative outcomes. (Premise 2) America has 350 million people. (Conclusion 1) So, the Senate will produce unrepresentative outcomes in America. (Conclusion 2) So, the Senate is bad for America.

The Senate is not the group meant to represent the people, so why would you think OP is arguing this?

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#269

Post by johnnyanmac » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #217

whimsicalism wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, in case you didn't notice, everything we are stating is opinions. I absolutely reject the notion that the senator from Wyoming should have equal political power to the senator from Texas or California, I think it is absurd, I don't doubt that some people in Wyoming disagree. I think Wyoming joining the US as a state without equal representation as the most populous state would still be a massive win for them and…

If you understand your just opining to other user’s opining… why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument?

>why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s?

I don't see where this is implied. I took the implication of "your opinion did not sway my own"

>Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument?

The "logic" is "larger states in a democracy should have more power because they represent more people". Which naively makes sense. I'm sure game theory would show some consequence of this formation though as a bunch of smaller states coalition around each other and make a two party system based on land, as opposed to ideology.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#270

Post by wing-_-nuts » Thu, Nov 13, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #234

mmoustafa wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative democracy. The founders simply had no option, you had to pick a person, put them in a carriage, and send them to the capitol to do your bidding (also why electoral college exists for reporting votes, but I digress). I always wonder what they would’ve created if everyone had a device in their pocket to send their preferences directly to the capitol at the spee…

As the Greeks found, the only think worse than representative democracy is direct democracy.

Vehemently disagree. I would much rather take our most contentious issues (abortion, M4A, etc) put them on a national ballot and let the general public decide. I don't agree with everything passed on ballot in my state, but I respect that at least the majority voted for it.