People often hate math because it was not explained to them correctly, usually by people who are good mathematicians but know close to nothing about teaching.
It was so infuriating to see everyone in the class absolutely fail on a specific subject and the "teacher" assumed that everyone must be stupid then. No self reflection, no questioning himself why he is not getting gaussian distribution in marks, just straight Fs.
> usually by people who are good mathematicians but know close to nothing about teaching.
I higly doubt that. Maybe in university level courses. Most people’s only experience with mathematics is an elementary or high school teacher who were probably themselves at best mediocre at the subject. Simply because of selection factors. Those who are good at math are encouraged to go into STEM. There will be of course exceptions everywhere, but that is not what “usually” happens.
And thats just about being good at maths the school subject, which is distinct from being “ good mathematicians” the science / research topic. Mathematicians are few and far between, simply because it is a specialist subject. There just aren’t enough of them to go around for them to be the formative experience around math for most people.
I think the problem is partly circular. Most people do not like maths. This includes most primary school teachers - in places I know primary school teachers are not subject specialists so just reflect the population of those with the required level of education in terms of their attitude to maths.
My daughter hated maths when I took her out of school at the age of nine. A few years later she was very good at it and enjoying maths and STEM subjects. When she went to a sixth form college[1] she liked it well enough to pick it as one of her A levels[2].
Another response to math that makes me sad: "I must be too stupid to understand this," "my brain is too small for this," etc. Different people say it for different reasons, but it's almost always in response to a hand-wavey explanation that doesn't makes sense to anyone not already in the know. Math is so much more about humility and skepticism than it is prodigy.
This is tricky, because, in fact, hard math having an intelligence floor is one of the nastier realities of the human condition. Anyone who is even quite intelligent but has really pursued the rigorous stuff, unless they are in fact a prodigy, eventually realizes they have an abstraction ceiling (and this term is a common one thrown around in people studying mathematics, because intelligence denial is so obviously false when you do hit your abstraction ceiling).
Most people are correct that they lack the intelligence / mind for a lot of hard math (even epsilon-delta proofs are enough to eliminate the majority of the population, no matter how good a teacher you are, and these are just basic undergrad calc).
And yeah, sure, people have different kinds of intelligence and such, but there is still a g-factor, and people of low intelligence almost universally can't do hard math, whereas most people who can do e.g. advanced undergrad math can generally do almost all other advanced undergrad fields reasonably well. The world isn't fair here.
> Anyone who is even quite intelligent but has really pursued the rigorous stuff, unless they are in fact a prodigy, eventually realizes they have an abstraction ceiling
Eh. I'm a math PhD who fled academia because it was too much for me. But I have never encountered this term "abstraction ceiling" nor did I succumb to it. I simply ran out of motivation to pursue higher math, especially when following through on learning and research became more and more labor. (It was always labor; but it was a labor I used to love.) I am far from a prodigy.
> even epsilon-delta proofs are enough to eliminate the majority of the population, no matter how good a teacher you are
Disagree. It's a notoriously hard subject to teach, and with all the demands placed on e-d in so little time in your average curriculum, it doesn't require appeals to IQ to explain its infamy. With enough motivation and practice, the quantifier alternation is comprehensible to any sound mind. What your average mind (and student) lacks is exposure to formalism, abstraction, and how these things tie in with what they are familiar with, which is symbolic manipulation. With the exception of geometric proofs (another educational bugbear), they have little context for what formalism is or why it matters.
> Eh. I'm a math PhD who fled academia because it was too much for me. But I have never encountered this term "abstraction ceiling" nor did I succumb to it.
This sounds a lot like you may have in fact succumbed to your abstraction ceiling, because in practice, the ceiling manifests as not as it being impossible for you to learn something, but that it would take you years and inordinate effort to master what you notice others mastering easily in just a fraction of the time. You may have not heard the exact term (comes from Douglas Hofstadter), and you may be talking about just the academic busywork, but I find it hard to believe you never encountered discussions about this kind of stuff. I would also politely suggest that unless you are Terry Tao posting under some kind of alt, you most certainly do have an abstraction ceiling (or your own mathematical limits) too.
> It's a notoriously hard subject to teach, and with all the demands placed on e-d in so little time in your average curriculum, it doesn't require appeals to IQ to explain its infamy. With enough motivation and practice, the quantifier alternation is comprehensible to any sound mind
The latter statement is obviously false, but regardless, intelligence explains some of the difficulty, and much other difficulties far more parsimoniously than "everyone could just learn any math if they just tried hard enough and had good enough teachers". E-d is merely an obvious and generally familiar example, and nothing I said really relies on this very specific aspect of maths, obviously. We also shouldn't pretend your (almost certainly false) view of math and intelligence isn't also often harmful to struggling students in its own way.
> Since then I've had the chance, in the world of mathematics that bid me welcome, to meet quite a number of people, both among my "elders" and among young people in my general age group, who were much more brilliant, much more "gifted" than I was. I admired the facility with which they picked up, as if at play, new ideas, juggling them as if familiar with them from the cradle - while for myself I felt clumsy. even oafish, wandering painfully up a arduous track, like a dumb ox faced with an amorphous mountain of things that I had to learn ( so I was assured), things I felt incapable of understanding the essentials or following through to the end.
(Alexander Grothendieck, Recoltes et Semailles)
Amazing that he managed to keep going after hitting his abstract ceiling in graduate school.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of the term. Grothendieck was almost certainly wrong about his gifts here, and even if not, your mathematical ability and output isn't fully explained by your ability ceiling.
Honestly, the pushback on this post is utterly baffling. Clearly the human mind has limits on what it can comprehend and the rate at which it can learn difficult things. Clearly these limits differ among individuals and are related to intelligence broadly.
Huge proportions of the population struggle to ever even grasp simple fractions, and not for a lack of effort from them or society. Fourth-year undergraduate mathematics is another beast entirely. Pretending the world is otherwise is pure fantasy and also plainly harmful, to the world and people that are unfairly pushed beyond their capabilities.
> Grothendieck was almost certainly wrong about his gifts here, and even if not, your mathematical ability and output isn't fully explained by your ability ceiling
lol, see, it's unfalsifiable. No true abstraction ceiling.
Find me the magical teaching method that can make anyone learn any kind of mathematics at nearly the same rate, and you have falsified the idea that anyone has mathematical limits.
Given we as a society can't even figure out how to do this for educating stuff involving simple fractions, my theory is far superior than whatever exactly it is you think.
That's far different than telling a math PhD whom you've never met that they hit their "abstraction ceiling" based on a 2/3 paragraph comment on hacker news. I'm sure you'd have said a similar thing to a young Grothendieck if he were describing his early struggles in graduate school. You're getting pushback because you were being rude and presumptuous.
Work on your reading comprehension, I made it clear that increased effort is what an abstraction ceiling feels like, but also made it clear that GP could have been talking about the effort of academic busywork.
Let's also not pretend that "you could have learned epsilon delta proofs, you just didn't try hard enough or your teachers weren't competent" or "you just didn't have enough time" and etc. is also not rude and presumptuous. Denying the existence of such limits is equally offensive.
You’re in a kind of compulsive ideology here. This same vein of thought and why it is harmful is described by David Bessis in the book Mathematica: A Secret World of Intuition and Curiosity.
“To stop thinking in terms of “gifts” and “talents,” one has to find an alternate explanation. My way of looking at things, which has served me well throughout my career, was to imagine that creative mathematicians were hackers who had found ways to unlock “hidden modes” of our cognition. Most of the time, they’d done so unwittingly, and were entirely incapable of explaining how.”
It is a phenomenon like child-like mental yoga of attention.
Uh huh. A bunch of quasi-mystical bullshit to justify utterly inept garden variety intelligence denialism (it also just shifts terminology: if we accept your metaphysics, it would still be strange to propose that everyone has exactly equal "hacking" ability).
The hubris and willful ignorance required to imagine that everyone is just equally and infinitely unbounded in their cognitive ability is simply mind-boggling in 2026.
But everyone is as a kid when they learn language and everything else. Some people retain that level of watching, listening, and babbling (hacking) when they don't know what to do. So the task is just to get people back into that mindset. Innate intelligence isn't necessarily only symbolic manipulation (analytical), it also is experiential/creative and practical per Sternberg.
> But everyone is as a kid when they learn language and everything else
Also clearly false by almost all current research.
> So the task is just to get people back into that mindset.
Again, you have no evidence, and this is clearly wrong in cases of mental retardation or brain damage. Modern genetic studies also seem to suggest intelligence is related to a lucky absence of errors / genetic problems that are otherwise inconsequential (or even advantageous) in other domains, so really, your "everyone starts perfectly equal in intellectual ability" is just empirically disconnected and ignorant fantasy.
I haven't talked to a child educational psychologist lately (I imagine that would be quite renewing to spend some time in a kindergarten even if only virtually, don't you?), but I don't think biological claims about elite abstraction is the only way when it comes to explaining more and more with less and less for mathematical education. For example, non-symbolic distinction and indication operations are far more fundamental than symbolic manipulation, and using that is a bottoms-up foundation more in keeping with constructivist understanding exhibited by math exemplars.
Cognitive disparity is because of compounding investment of attention and metacognition in development, preferably in a self-referential non-symbolic universal way because intuition is partly based on sensual metaphors and embodied cognition. Everyone has issues distinguishing ungrounded concepts if they don't have a map of them from their attention previously..
Mental rigidity (aka "fragile perfects") is a fairly common phenomenon for math anxiety, whereas Grothendieck advised uninhibited playfulness to deal with uncertainty. The perceived difficulty of mathematics is a social phenomenon rather than organic comprehension limits on abstraction ceiling.
It is the social aspect of math that is the superintelligent part of it, which transcends the genetic determinist perspective. Civilization advances because education transforms the breakthroughs of genius (which all children have ultimate capability for) into the baseline intuition of the rising children by sharpening their attention. Math is supposed to be a democratization of human understanding, that's why the Greeks were so keen on deduction and why proofs are for systematic communication. If a stupid-ass computer can do math, so can any human being.
> Cognitive disparity is because of compounding investment of attention and metacognition in development [...]
Sure, but exclusively? There are no other factors that don't depend on effort / investment / social context?
I can't take you seriously when you take such an absolutist stance on these things when science has long since accepted nothing complex about humans is 100% nature or 100% nurture (really, shared vs. non-shared environment vs. genetics, but, surely you know this).
Whereas “abstraction ceiling” is hard science backed by ample literature, not a loose metaphor directly contradicted by several prominent mathematicians who didn’t quit when the going got tough.
I think the fact the Feynman took an IQ test and scored 127 is damning of the entire concept. I think what turns mathematicians off is the thought that psychologists who couldn’t tell you the difference between a scheme and a metric space think they can actually measure who has the capacity to be a mathematician and who doesn’t.
Like, why fucking bother doing anything? Why run the 100 meters at the Olympics, let’s just do some genetic testing and measurements to pick the fastest man in the world. Why teach kids music, let’s just measure hand size and do some sight singing exercises and teach the talented kids piano. This whole nonsense reeks of Gattaca-style quasi-eugenics where people get sorted into profession by people who don’t actually have expertise in any of them. You’re not in the guild, you don’t get to appoint to the guild, and you certainly don’t get to gatekeep who can apply for the guild.
Edit: Dropping slurs when someone compares your views to eugenics is an interesting strategy. Shouldn’t you be at a meetup discussing Curtis Yarvin’s work or something?
"Abstraction ceiling" is just a way to talk about intelligence at at the tails that reveals one of the difficulties / limitations you can encounter when it comes to compressing / abstracting complex mathematical objects. Your objections to the term are facile and clearly stem from an obviously unvocalized intelligence denialism that is simply indefensible today. Also, intelligence != IQ, obviously this is too simplistic.
Everything about your arguments and other posts is similar reductions to retarded extremes (our only options are "eugenics 2.0" or deranged intelligence denialism - there is no room for anything in between, e.g. the idea that base intelligence matters and sets a hard average ceiling on potential, but that effort and other factors might push one slightly above/below this ceiling relative to others with a similar intelligence, and etc). Or alternately you hallucinate things I never said or even remotely implied (e.g. we should gatekeep based on dumb psychology metrics or hand sizes).
Just be honest: you know intelligence is real and matters, but you want to dance around this fact because you find it ideologically inconvenient.
> This sounds a lot like you may have in fact succumbed to your abstraction ceiling
It sounds more like you're turning a vibes based theory into a tautology.
Hofstadter struggling with math for the first time in graduate school isn't a unique story, nor is his self introspection about this event a good basis for an apparently unfalsifiable theory about human cognition.
That stuff always gives me such a eugenics 2.0 vibe — no, no, the hierarchy is based on innate cognitive ability now. Gives me the creeps that they're actually in academia pushing that stuff.
We have mountains of evidence that humans differ dramatically in cognitive potential, and more again that often effort / practice can only explain a small amount of the variance in performance in a wide variety of fields. We have basically zero evidence at all that anyone can just learn anything if they try hard enough under the right teacher, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Abstraction ceilings are about rates and difficulty of learning, so even if we assumed the (absurd) claim that no one has any fundamental cognitive limits, until we are immortal, being slow enough still creates an effective ceiling.
Intelligence denialism is the incoherent and indefensible position here.
> People often hate math because it was not explained to them correctly
Spoiler: this is also why mathematicians hate vibe-math. AIs are outright terrible explainers even when they do have a watertight logical argument—and honestly, this is the load-bearing seam.
It goes beyond "proof vs. exposition": the logical derivations AI comes up with fail to even qualify as human-directed proof because of how terrible they are (far below even the most novice mathematician doing their roughest work) at the exposition part.
> AIs are outright terrible explainers even when they do have a watertight logical argument
I think this only applies to cutting edge mathematics (novel proofs of hard problems). I have seen it reported more than once that such AI proofs are cumbersome to follow.
But in my experience, when it comes to explaining well-established math that is already in the training data, AIs can be very good teachers (at least with recent models). Especially if you use it along with a textbook and ask it about anything that might not be explained well in the textbook.
I have a hatred for people who think they can use this method.
If used incorrectly which it is a great percentage of the time it confuses the student. The person employing the socratic method must actually know the answer and where the student is in their mind. Failure on either account makes it pointless.
Ask anyone unfortunate enough to ask for help on IRC
That only works if the one you're trying to guide can figure it out mostly on their own and is interested in cooperating. Aka does not work for anything below university level.
This description feels like you are describing mold. It is invisible. It smells bad. And can slowly erode everything it grows on. One day you will take a shovel with molded handle and it will just detach.
Isaac Arthur was talking about technological singularity 10-15 years ago. The fundamental problem which he pointed out is that you will just run out of energy long before even touching the singularity.
AI apocalypse is basically the same thing but you can also run out of tokens too.
With diesel over $6/gallon now that's probably not too attractive. Natural gas probably more likely, and less polluting at least as far as particulates go. CO2 still created.
Are all new data centers being built with on-site power generation (for regular operations, not just emergency backup)? I'd assume they'd prefer utility power where they could get it.
Diesel generators are mostly for emergencies. Natural gas turbines (many of which are or are derived from jumbo jet engines) are for on-prem power generation.
I like variety of bread in Germany, but one of the problems is how quickly it goes mouldy. Even the cheap stuff I had as a student in Aberystwyth (coastal) from Lidl (German chain) didn't go off quite so fast so often.
The whole idea of "voter's fraud" is actually something unheard of in Europe because you will get government issued id (Citizen ID) when you reach 15 y/o and it is renewed every 10 years. You are then using it for voting and in general proving your identity. The later models are biometric so it is very hard to fake it
The fact that USA never finished the Real ID thing as the Citizen ID in Europe is kind of mind blowing for me. It is elegant solution to everything what current administration is complaining about - prove of citizenship for ICE, prevention of voting fraud and especially business owners can tell who is citizen and who is not.
The United States doesn't have a central registry of citizens. New births are supposed to be recorded by local officials, in about 3000 different jurisdictions, and they're only recorded locally. Many of those local jurisdictions are operated poorly, and in some cases they have refused to issue certificates of birth based on race, or other personal grudges held by officials. So we simply aren't in the position to issue such identifiers, and in particular we can't assume that a person without traceable documentation isn't a citizen.
The social security administration does have a central database of essentially everyone born in the US after 1986, when a law was passed that required you to provide the SSN of anyone you claimed as a dependent on your taxes. As a result essentially every child born in the US is issued an SSN along with their birth certificate.
Enumeration at birth was piloted in three states starting in 1987, made available to all states in 1989, and more or less in use everywhere by 1997 ... Needing an SSN for taxes is the motivation (or vice versa) but implentation of the tax change happened before implementation of enumeration.
Also, it should be noted, parents can opt out of enumeration at birth. The child certainly doesn't have input into that decision.
Medical professionals are generally legally obligated to report births, but not all births happen with medical supervision.
I was in college around 2000. Some of my fellow students had no way to obtain an official birth certificate as the county records had been lost in a flood or a fire or something.
Older generations also have the legacy of Jim Crow. Birth registration rates in 1940 in some states was close to 80%. [1].
If you're born today and don't have a birth certificate, it's a giant PITA and your parents will likely end up getting your birth retroactively documented. Maybe when they want to claim you for taxes; maybe to enroll you in school.
If you were born in 1940 and didn't have one, you probably just made do... When 24% of the children in Arkansas didn't get a birth certificate, everybody is going to be fine with you not having one.
> and in some cases they have refused to issue certificates of birth based on race, or other personal grudges held by officials.
Just to be clear for our international friends, this is basically as unheard of. "In some cases" you could say well in some cases of murder someone is a cannibal too. It's a big country with over 340 million people under one roof. Shit happens.
No, it was typical of the Jim Crow South. Black mothers were not permitted in hospitals, and county clerks refused to register home births. It was all part of the system of oppression.
Your point is laying in a ditch bleeding to death. There are loads of people alive today who personally suffered from Jim Crow. These practices continued right through 1968, and were revived in Texas between 2013 and 2016.
This exaggeration is why we can't have universal digital ID or resilient voter fraud protections — which is what the original question was by the way. Do you also believe voter fraud is unheard of and never happens?
> Do you also believe voter fraud is unheard of and never happens?
I believe it's more rare than citizens without documentation of birth.
If you want to tie a 'universal' ID to a birth document when birth documentation is not universal, you need to lead with a proposal for how to actually make it universally accessible, including to those without documentation of birth.
No it's not. It's alive and well and just bought a new house.
Stop fear-mongering. One person doing something wrong one time does not constitute any sort of noticeable or wide-scale practice and the fact that if such an event occurs it makes national news and is fixed goes to show that the public is opposed to these practices, they are exceptionally rare.
Or perhaps there are "some cases" of voter fraud too ;)
We have plenty of naturalized immigrants with no traceable documentation of their birth because they grew up in the middle of nowhere.
Somehow this wasn't a problem for them, while whites-only water fountains still live rent-free in your mind.
Following your logic, no problem is solvable until you have eliminated all potential issues and outliers. No startups would ever get off the ground with that attitude.
> We have plenty of naturalized immigrants with no traceable documentation of their birth because they grew up in the middle of nowhere.
Sure, because the documentation required used to be less.
When I was first getting my driver's license, you could establish your identity by having a birth certificate or some sort of vouching process. These days, you need a birth certificate.
It would be hard to immigrate today without a birth certificate, in part because it would be hard to get a passport without it, and it's hard to enter the country without a passport. Countries where record keeping was historically poor tend to have more accessible ways to obtain a passport without a birth certificate... A passport is sufficient proof of birth in an immigration file, and a certificate of naturalization is sufficient proof of citizenship, so a birth certificate isn't explicitly necessary.
I'm all for solving problems, but I am not for committing a major disenfranchisement under cover of solving a non-problem. People who want to just ram through voter ID laws without solving the problem of undocumented citizens can't be treated as serious members of society.
Maybe you're not helping to solve this problem and you're just making it worse by overstating the problem and causing others to argue over whether there is even a problem?
> People who want to just ram through voter ID laws without solving the problem of undocumented citizens can't be treated as serious members of society.
Maybe we want to be more like Europe with IDs from birth and to use them for all government activities.
Who are you to be the arbiter of who is a serious member of society?
This was something I fully realized when I got married. Where is the official record that we are married? It’s a piece of paper in a filing cabinet in a small town two states away. Unless I provide a copy of my license, there is no way for anyone to see for sure if I’m married except to go to every jurisdiction nationally and see if they have a marriage license that matches my info. You could try to infer it from something like tax returns, but the IRS has never actually validated that I’m married. They just take my word for it unless they have a reason to be suspicious.
If one or both of the two who just got married wants to change their name? The process is downright bizarre. There is no central name database you go update. You just send off forms to a bunch of places saying “this is my name now,” some with a copy of your marriage license.
Strange, but a little more decentralized and a little more "free", isn't it?
Why go through some centralized, hackable database, wait in line, and maybe get told to go away by some nameless official making minimum wage to update your last name when you can just decide to start using it and that's your prerogative? "I go by this, you don't get to decide". "My gender is this: it's not up to you to decide". I think it's something worth debating whether or not these kinds of things should even have anything to do with the government. I think there are good reasons, but I can certainly see very well-reasoned and principled arguments against the government being involved in some affairs like this.
Anyone can request their birth certificate in the jurisdiction of recording. There is absolutely no mechanism by which a request for that documentation could be refused because of someone’s race or a grudge.
What do you mean no mechanism? People can just say no? What I think you mean is that they’re are mechanisms today to combat folks saying no, but nothing stops (only punushes) people from saying no.
It’s a lot harder these days given the 60 years of progress
You might be back down to zero progress and if that’s true you have my genuine sympathy. I look around and all I see is great progress everywhere. I don’t care much about social politics though. People being mad at each other about whatever offense is popular today just doesn’t register with me.
> The whole idea of "voter's fraud" is actually something unheard of in Europe because you will get government issued id (Citizen ID) when you reach 15 y/o and it is renewed every 10 years. You are then using it for voting and in general proving your identity. The later models are biometric so it is very hard to fake it
> It is elegant solution to everything what current administration is complaining about - prove of citizenship for ICE, prevention of voting fraud and especially business owners can tell who is citizen and who is not.
Well there are two things here. We don't in my opinion, have much of an issue with actual voter fraud - as claimed by those on the right. However, we also have a number of folks on the left who are against voter ID requirements because it might disenfranchise some voters who don't have an ID... an ID you need to do the vast majority of important tasks in life. I've always said if you're not responsible enough to get an ID we don't want you voting anyway (no I don't care about the downvotes).
It's sort of funny how these have seemed to change over time. Folks on the right historically were very much against "big government" ID programs. On the left? In favor! Well, until you start using it for checking who is voting or something. It's also amusing and a little bit irritating that our national ID system is basically 50 state ID systems and they are all centered on having a license to drive a car....
Also Americans can get IDs at a younger age too (children over a certain age need a passport to travel outside the US for example) but we don't really as a society require an ID for many things in practice - it's not really the culture here, we prefer a little bit of anonymity, but once you hit 15 1/2 or 16 you can get a state level driver's license which you'll then carry for the rest of your life. For those who don't drive you are also able to get what counts to just a state ID.
Not to make excuses but the US is a little hard to understand some times with these things because there's so much, especially in the news, emphasis on the federal level of the US government but it really is 50 sovereign states who send representatives to Washington DC. Unlike in, say, Estonia which from my very limited understanding is sort of one people, one country, some divisions. In the US you're from California, or Ohio, or Maine and the state manages most of your lifecycle affairs.
> The fact that USA never finished the Real ID thing as the Citizen ID in Europe is kind of mind blowing for me.
I actually refuse to get a "Real ID". I already have a passport. They can kiss my ass on paying an extra $25 for what amounts to the same ID card I already have. I'll take it for free but I'm not paying for it. I'll just carry my passport when I fly.
The left is more inclined to accept voter ID laws if the ID can be provided to people for no cost (otherwise it's a poll tax) and assistance is provided for any citizens that don't have a complete collection of the necessary documents. A homeless person that doesn't have possession of their social security card and birth certificate has just as much of a right to receive an ID to vote as you or I.
American states are sovereign entities. This is very well understood in Constitutional law, albeit a little confusing for the laymen as the common understanding of sovereignty would be something like, well France is sovereign because it has an army and it conducts trade and all of those sorts of sovereign things.
But US states are sovereign entities who have, effectively, joined together to delegate some of their sovereign activities to a federal body (which has increased in power over the years) for the common good. They are very tightly bound to the federal government, but these matters don't refute their sovereignty. It's one of the reasons, maybe the primary one, for the US Senate - it's a vote of sovereignty by any individual state so that states with higher populations don't simply dictate rules to states with lower levels of population. Lower population states wouldn't have agreed to delegate some of their sovereign rights without some mechanism to not be run over by populists.
US states are sovereign in the sense the term is understood in US constitutional law, but not in the sense used in international law and international politics. They would be autonomous subdivisions of a sovereign state in the latter sense.
Sovereign states in the latter sense can delegate their powers to external entities (as they do in the EU), but they can also unilaterally choose to take that power back (as the UK did).
The USSR was an interesting case when it comes to sovereignty. Legally its member republics were sovereign states, but that sovereignty meant little in practice. As a result of a weird compromise, Ukraine and Belarus were founding members of the UN, despite not being sovereign in the generally understood sense. There was a legal mechanism for secession, but in the end, the member republics ignored it and dissolved the union.
No, US States are not sovereign entities. They have no ability to conduct independent international diplomacy. They do not have independent militaries, and they have no right to secede. The supremacy clause (article 7) makes it clear that states cannot override federal law.
With the way you’re characterizing the idea of sovereignty, every entity in the world is semi-sovereign. But sovereignty isn’t a spectrum. An entity is either sovereign or it’s not.
"Although the Constitution establishes a National Government with broad, often plenary authority over matters within its recognized competence, the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, supra, at 71, n. 15; accord, Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U. S. 775, 779 (1991) ("[T]he States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact"). Various textual provisions of the Constitution assume the States' continued existence and active participation in the fundamental processes of governance. See Printz v. United States, 521 U. S. 898, 919 (1997) (citing Art. III, § 2; Art. IV, §§ 2-4; Art. V). The limited and enumerated powers granted to the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the National Government, moreover, underscore the vital role reserved to the States by the constitutional design, see, e. g., Art. I, § 8; Art. II, §§ 2-3; Art. III, § 2. Any doubt regarding the constitutional role of the States as sovereign entities is removed by the Tenth Amendment, which, like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, was enacted to allay lingering concerns about the extent of the national power. The Amendment confirms the promise implicit in the original document: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." U. S. Const., Amdt. 10; see also Printz, supra, at 919; New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 156159, 177 (1992).
The federal system established by our Constitution preserves the sovereign status of the States in two ways. First, it reserves to them a substantial portion of the N ation's primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status. The States "form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." The Federalist No. 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
"Second, even as to matters within the competence of the National Government, the constitutional design secures the founding generation's rejection of "the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States" in favor of "a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people who were, in Hamilton's words, 'the only proper objects of government.'" Printz, supra, at 919-920 (quoting The Federalist No. 15, at 109); accord, New York, supra, at 166 ("The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States"). In this the Founders achieved a deliberate departure from the Articles of Confederation: Experience under the Articles had "exploded on all hands" the "practicality of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 9 (M. Farrand ed. 1911) (J. Madison); accord, The Federalist No. 20, at 138 (J. Madison and A. Hamilton); James Iredell: Some Objections to the Constitution Answered, reprinted in 3 Annals of America 249 (1976).
"The States thus retain "a residuary and inviolable sovereignty." The Federalist No. 39, at 245. They are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."
This is a fine debate tactic — dumping a load of text without the proper context. But I’m not debating here. I’m plainly stating the fact that US states are not sovereign entities. In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
Folks have provided great information. It's up to you to decide to accept the facts or continue to double down on your private worldview, but it won't serve you well to be ignorant of the facts here.
You and that other guy made good points from a constitutional law standpoint, don’t misunderstand my disagreement for dismissal of any kind.
A legal term of art is often a bit different than the basic word itself. From a legal term of art perspective, I’m essentially referencing “absolute sovereignty”, which would more closely mirror the actual dictionary definition of sovereignty, as a basic, contextless word.
I would just say that we should be mindful that the legal definition is how things are implemented in practice as well - states exercise their sovereign rights on a daily basis because the exercise of those rights is the exercise of an interpretation of law.
Related to your point about absolute sovereignty I wouldn't disagree with you at all, but I would say that, and I'm not accusing you of doing this by any means, we should be mindful not to shift the goalposts and attempt to depress the meaning and significance of sovereignty just because an entity isn't also absolutely sovereign.
It seems disingenuous, or at least antisocial, to insist that you are correct about a broad and unqualified statement you made while also declaring that you meant something narrower all along.
It's completely genuine, and it's obvious that I was referring to the basic meaning of the word the entire time to even a casual observer. Ascribing malice seems a bit irrational to me.
It is a mistake to think that what you believe is "obvious" is obvious to everyone else, and that people agree on a "basic meaning" of words that aren't used in everyday conversation. (Observe and count the number of times the word "sovereignty" comes up in conversation in your daily life.)
I never ascribe malice to anyone who makes an honest mistake and doesn’t continue to double down when corrected, insisting they’re right or that they meant something else and everyone should have understood them somehow. There are lots of smart people here from all backgrounds and it’s good to defer to others who are better informed about a subject (and I’m no exception).
I agree with this, I'm thinking more along the line of debate mistake. I make them, I always invite corrections and I think the willingness to speak on terms of your debate opponent smooths the debate process. Sometimes it does get a bit impractical, heh debating libertarians often involves learning whole new versions of english lol
Still I think you will be more successful if you put forward your caveat on definitions ahead of time, nothing is to be gained during a debate by preemptively declaring your victory, so if I were to suggest improvements to rhetoric, I'd examine my own use of "the fact is that" type things and make sure that what I describe during these uses are indeed facts agreed upon by the debate participants.
Like if I were a libertarian, instead of declaring taxation is theft, I would offer a "wouldn't you agree" and this way we debate participants share a goal of honing in to the fundamental disagreement at stake and I can tell you in my experiences it often comes down to a lack of shared values instead of facts in dispute.
> the founding document "specifically recognizes the States as sovereign entities."
it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact.
>In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe
I am doing exactly same thing of creating a solution which can be applied to multiple problems at the same time.
Sometimes coworkers does not like that because they don't see me working on the problem, but on a tool which will resolve the problem and similar problems from our backlog.
Some people either want to solve a whole problem or none of it.
There's art in knowing what parts of a problem can be solved now without screwing your chances of fixing the rest later when you actually fully understand the problem, and have discovered a proper fix.
It was so infuriating to see everyone in the class absolutely fail on a specific subject and the "teacher" assumed that everyone must be stupid then. No self reflection, no questioning himself why he is not getting gaussian distribution in marks, just straight Fs.
reply