undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfzeroracer5y ago0 comments

If you were to break down the argument even further, let's say Kansas had a farmer that owned 90% of the land. The remaining 10% of the land was shared between 1000 people.

Why should that single farmer be allowed to control the entire state over the rest of the 1000 people?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

axaxs5y ago· 2 in thread

I'm not making that argument, either. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate. I honestly don't think either scenario is correct, so what's the solution?

sangnoir5y ago

You're implicitly making that argument though - pitting raw number of people vs land owned as a measure of who gets more say.

axaxs5y ago

I'm making the argument that one concentrated area should not control the fate of a much larger area. I'm not, however, asserting that the larger area should control the fate of the concentrated area, either.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse