Big government and State rights

In My Humble Opinion
1

This is not placed in Great Debates, as it is just my opinion, and IANAL, so I don’t have a legal opinon on this. I usually stay out of things like this, but on this website:

states that:

in its title.

I had to comment on it-

What do you think?

States rights should be regulated by a barebones federal government, but the states can get as persnickety as they want, right? I thought that’s what the federal government said, with a few amendments to allow protections for people in cases where the states wanted to actively hurt people.

This is the only way in which I think the south had the right idea by seceding- I don’t agree with the partial motive of continuing slavery, but I think that states should have the right to secede when the government is too opressive- and a government that forces unity by violence is by definition an oppressive government, I would say.

What say you all? And legal folks, what says the law? It seems that legislators have passed laws that keep getting on the books that violate the constitution…

I realize that I have posed a whole lot of questions, but I think they are so interrelated that I don’t feel right editing them out, as they are all part and parcel.

Thanks in advance!

2

[QUOTE=gurujulp]

As a public employee, I am completely and totally against the government regulating our economy. No business is ‘too big to fail’ - nor is any government…
We should allow market rules to correct market problems, and limit federal government to helping guarantee the rights of states and regulating intrastate diplomacy.

What do you think?

[/quote]

I think that that system (pure laissez-faire capitalism) has pretty much already been tried, and it’s called The 19th Century. It was full of bank crises, deflation, pollution, labor exploitation, snake oil salesmen, and other systemic problems. People survived it obviously, but it demonstrated pretty clearly how badly markets can behave when left totally unregulated.

[QUOTE=gurujulp]

This is the only way in which I think the south had the right idea by seceding- I don’t agree with the partial motive of continuing slavery, but I think that states should have the right to secede when the government is too opressive- and a government that forces unity by violence is by definition an oppressive government, I would say.

[/quote]

If a US state could just leave whenever it disagreed with national policy, then we wouldn’t have a nation. You might as well say we’re 50 separate nations and be done with it.

Of course, if the southern states had petitioned peacefully to leave the Union, and negotiated some settlement with Congress over property and debts — instead of firing on US troops and seizing federal assets, as they in fact did — that might have been a different story. I’m not sure a negotiated secession would really have worked either, but we’ll never know because it was never tried.

[QUOTE=gurujulp]

What say you all? And legal folks, what says the law? It seems that legislators have passed laws that keep getting on the books that violate the constitution…

[/quote]

You can’t prevent that initial event, the legislature passing a law, from happening. But this is why we have a court system with judicial review: to decide issues of constitutionality.

Note that laws declared unconstitutional usually stay “on the books”, even though they’re effectively nullified.

3

If you believe that will keep this thread from turning into and being moved into GD, then I’ve got a nice bridge I think you should consider as an investment opportunity.

4

I think that it is unfortunate that ‘big army’ is needed. Without big army, if we had stayed regulated militias, then I think that we would indeed have something much more analogous to 50 polis’… but modern warfare, even modern in the 1800’s, made that untenable.

I don’t think the government should stay 100% out of the state, thus my initial statement that there should be regulation if the states (and I guess I also meant individuals in states) attempted to actively hurt individuals, that should be addressed. On re-read, however, that IS what is going on, misguided and inept though it may be, so I don’t have a solution, just a criticism…

I am a bit curious as to whether enough of a thread will exist to justify such a transfer… No thanks on the bridge, though, I already bought a 50% interest in the Brooklyn Bridge, and haven’t even made it out to the swampfront property in FL…

5

It might have had some validity in the 18th century when people never got farther than 10 miles from where they were born, but those days are long past.

People live in one state and work in another. They buy stuff on the Internet and don’t even know where the seller is actually located. Their local bank gets taken over by a financial company 1,500 miles away. The beef they eat comes from Kansas, the chicken from Arkansas and their car comes from Korea. Fifty different states are supposed to regulate all that?

6

Why not take this logic to the next step - States should have a minor role and Counties (or Parishes) should be the center of Government.

Why not take this logic to the next step - Counties (or Parishes) should have a minor role and Cities should be the center of Government.

Why not take this logic to the next step - Cities should have a minor role and Neighborhoods should be the center of Government.

Neighborhoods -> Blocks

Blocks -> Houses

Houses -> Rooms

Why not?

7

Because it denies the obvious truth that every individual should be a nation unto themselves! Support small government! Down with Rooms!

8

My right hand is near staging a coup, but all of the fingers don’t agree. Some joints are not playing along.

9

This is awesome. I have to confess a bit of libertarianism, but only a bit. I do agree with individuals as nations, but I am myself nowhere near that much organization, so I agree with a higher level of organization.

If it were a perfect world, and we were all polymaths and renaissance individuals who could make, enjoy, and consume everything we needed, with the resources available to allow us such things, I think it would be awesome.

I am ideologically split, however, as I waver between thinking that we should each strive for the above-referenced individual polymath status, and the other extreme, that if we can make it to Singularity, then it would be great to be giant child aborigines supported by the new intelligence with laptops and all-world access- postulating a benevolent emergence after singularity, of course…