The fallacy of harping on "state's rights"

[knapplc]

If you're proposing that the "basis of my argument" in this thread comes from the 12th post, my third post in the thread, a thread I'm the OP of... well...

 

[NUance]

I dunno about state's rights versus the federal gov't but I do know that the feds tend to be terribly inefficient, rising to the level of incompetence in many areas. We could get rid of about half the federal government and America would be better off, not worse off. Well, except that all of them would be unemployed due to an utter lack of competence in any meaningful occupation. IMHO.

 

 

/Gets off soap box. Sits quietly, hoping Big Brother doesn't come knocking.

[Conga3]

I always wonder what people mean. What rights are currently being withheld from states that need to be returned to them?

 

This is a great question.

 

"State's Rights" is a catch-all phrase often misused, like "Civil Rights" often is.

 

The core debate is really "Central Planning" vs. "Local Government"

 

Proponents of "States Rights" often are really looking to abolish Federal laws that would then be handled at the State level.

 

The core justification for this is that government is "better" at serving the people when it is executed as close to the constituents as possible - as it more accurately reflects what the people want.

 

This isn't just a STATE/FEDERAL thing, it's a debate at every level of government.

 

Consider this hierarchy of government :

• Treaties
• Federal
• State
• Country
• District
• Association
• Family

--------

 

The second core justification is the concept that a healthy democratic republic involves diverse and separate 'experiments' at the State level and below. This provides the people with the most liberties and choice.

 

The people can either vote for a change they want in their state, or vote with their feet and move to the state that has what they want.

 

Each time the Federal government passes a law that negates the variety of choices between the states, the country becomes more homogeneous.

 

This can be good. This can be bad.

 

---------

 

To get to your original question, an argument could be made that the Federal Minimum wage law is one law that could be abolished, returning the minimum wage issue back to the state level.

 

But that is only one of probably thousands of laws/policies that could have arguments made for them.

[Junior]

I dunno about state's rights versus the federal gov't but I do know that the feds tend to be terribly inefficient, rising to the level of incompetence in many areas. We could get rid of about half the federal government and America would be better off, not worse off. Well, except that all of them would be unemployed due to an utter lack of competence in any meaningful occupation. IMHO.

 

 

/Gets off soap box. Sits quietly, hoping Big Brother doesn't come knocking.

 

It's a nice talking point, but you'll have to back that up with some specifics. Which agencies? Why/how are the inefficient?

[NUance]

 

I dunno about state's rights versus the federal gov't but I do know that the feds tend to be terribly inefficient, rising to the level of incompetence in many areas. We could get rid of about half the federal government and America would be better off, not worse off. Well, except that all of them would be unemployed due to an utter lack of competence in any meaningful occupation. IMHO.

 

 

/Gets off soap box. Sits quietly, hoping Big Brother doesn't come knocking.

 

It's a nice talking point, but you'll have to back that up with some specifics. Which agencies? Why/how are the inefficient?

 

 

Oh, we could talk about waste and inefficiency in the Dept of Commerce, the Dept of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the DEA, or any of several other agencies. But let’s just consider the DoD. I spent several years as a defense consultant for a private firm analyzing the costs of different weapon systems being proposed. I suspect the average tax payer has no idea just how much fraud, waste and abuse is in the DoD budget. (I'm not talking about soldiers in the field. I'm pointing at defense contractors and civilian/military gov't staff involved in weapon system acquisition.)

Let me give you one small, yet egregious, example of what I'm talking about. At a particular stage in the defense system acquisition process it was (and probably still is) a requirement of law that an interdepartmental analysis be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of the various bids received from defense contractors. Normally, this is done in or near Washington D.C. because about 75% of the government employees and private support contractors participating in the analysis are based in the D.C. area. For one particular defense system bid I worked on, we received instructions that the analysis would be conducted in Florida. This seemed quite odd since only a couple of the thirty-something members of the team were from Florida. All the others had to fly in and stay in a hotel for several days while the analysis meetings were conducted to evaluate the various contractor proposals. Can you guess the reason we spent all the time and money it took to fly to Florida for these meetings? It was because the manager who was tasked with running the meetings had a relative getting married in Florida that weekend a short distance from our hotel. The manager saved a few hundred dollars that it would have cost her to attend the wedding (since her flight and hotel were paid for by Uncle Sam). But it cost the gov’t around $30k on flights and hotels to hold these meetings in Florida rather than in the D.C. area.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in DoD waste, fraud and abuse. The real action begins anytime a large cost-plus contract is inked. After a handful of years analyzing DoD systems costs I was so sickened by the governmental largess that I decided to change career fields. And the thing is, I suspect similar waste occurs in nearly every federal agency. Some more than others, with DoD being the worst.

[LukeinNE]

Well hang on, now. What are we talking about when we say "state's rights?" My position the matter is that I feel we should devolve as much authority as possible to the states, as I believe (and I think the evidence bears out) that the government closest to the people best serves those people's needs. That being said, there are certain powers that have to remain exclusively under the federal government's purview, mostly the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. That ought to substantially narrow the battleground that we're talking about, and I'm happy to engage on some of those points. Unfortunately, I feel like the left in this country is trying very hard to make the words "states rights" = advocating for a neo-confederate, AoC reorganization of how this nation is governed. A few wackadoodles from Mississippi aside, that's a complete straw man.

 

Major gripes off the top of my head:

 

(Department of Education (NCLB), EPA Clean Water Act overreach (regulating retaining ponds on farms and the like) US Fish and Wildlife Game Wardens harassing hunters on state and private land (redundant, NE Game and Parks does just fine)

[Junior]

Well hang on, now. What are we talking about when we say "state's rights?" My position the matter is that I feel we should devolve as much authority as possible to the states, as I believe (and I think the evidence bears out) that the government closest to the people best serves those people's needs. That being said, there are certain powers that have to remain exclusively under the federal government's purview, mostly the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. That ought to substantially narrow the battleground that we're talking about, and I'm happy to engage on some of those points. Unfortunately, I feel like the left in this country is trying very hard to make the words "states rights" = advocating for a neo-confederate, AoC reorganization of how this nation is governed. A few wackadoodles from Mississippi aside, that's a complete straw man.

 

Major gripes off the top of my head:

 

(Department of Education (NCLB), EPA Clean Water Act overreach (regulating retaining ponds on farms and the like) US Fish and Wildlife Game Wardens harassing hunters on state and private land (redundant, NE Game and Parks does just fine)

 

Is there evidence that the states can do a better job with these things? Or is it just a gut feeling?

[LukeinNE]

Is there evidence that the states can do a better job with these things? Or is it just a gut feeling?

 

If you're referring to my specific complaints, NCLB has been generally panned. Speaking from personal experience, upwards of half of my time in 5th-8th grade (I can't remember the years specifically) was spent preparing for the damned tests (though it did lead to some amusing acts of civil disobedience on the part of our teachers, up to and including giving the exact answers for the exact test we were about to take). The EPA attempting to regulate water on private farm is a classic case of overreach into a field the agency does not understand. Lincoln isn't perfect, but they at least know well enough to work with farm advocacy groups when crafting their regulations. Federal game wardens policing private and state land is just a clear redundancy, as the Nebraska Game and Parks guys already have that covered. Common sense and good stewardship of tax dollars requires that the government justify that redundancy, rather than the rest of us having to prove it's not necessary.

[Junior]

 

Is there evidence that the states can do a better job with these things? Or is it just a gut feeling?

 

If you're referring to my specific complaints, NCLB has been generally panned. Speaking from personal experience, upwards of half of my time in 5th-8th grade (I can't remember the years specifically) was spent preparing for the damned tests (though it did lead to some amusing acts of civil disobedience on the part of our teachers, up to and including giving the exact answers for the exact test we were about to take). The EPA attempting to regulate water on private farm is a classic case of overreach into a field the agency does not understand. Lincoln isn't perfect, but they at least know well enough to work with farm advocacy groups when crafting their regulations. Federal game wardens policing private and state land is just a clear redundancy, as the Nebraska Game and Parks guys already have that covered. Common sense and good stewardship of tax dollars requires that the government justify that redundancy, rather than the rest of us having to prove it's not necessary.

 

 

So... gut feeling.

 

Also, with regards to multiple agencies at different levels policing the same thing, that isn't a novel thing (think county sheriff, state police, fbi, etc) and isn't necessarily bad either. Larger agencies often have more resources than smaller, local ones that make getting the job done an easier task.

[LukeinNE]

 

So... gut feeling.

 

Again, the burden of proof must naturally fall on the government to justify its intrusion into a particular area, especially when a locality already has that exact function covered.

 

Also, with regards to multiple agencies at different levels policing the same thing, that isn't a novel thing (think county sheriff, state police, fbi, etc) and isn't necessarily bad either. Larger agencies often have more resources than smaller, local ones that make getting the job done an easier task.

 

I have yet to see the FBI doing traffic enforcement on I-80.

[Junior]

 

 

So... gut feeling.

 

Again, the burden of proof must naturally fall on the government to justify its intrusion into a particular area, especially when a locality already has that exact function covered.

 

Also, with regards to multiple agencies at different levels policing the same thing, that isn't a novel thing (think county sheriff, state police, fbi, etc) and isn't necessarily bad either. Larger agencies often have more resources than smaller, local ones that make getting the job done an easier task.

 

I have yet to see the FBI doing traffic enforcement on I-80.

 

 

Sure, because that's all the state police does.

[tschu]

Well hang on, now. What are we talking about when we say "state's rights?"

 

Most of the time, you can read between the lines and get to the real point of "I don't like this new federal law. Something Something State's Rights!"

[BigRedBuster]

 

Well hang on, now. What are we talking about when we say "state's rights?"

 

Most of the time, you can read between the lines and get to the real point of "I don't like this new federal law. Something Something State's Rights!"

 

Yeah....I choose to ignore the blow hards on that and try to look at a common sense approach. Yes, there are things the feds do better and yes, there are things the states and local municipalities do better.

 

In general, the more local anything can be the better.

[knapplc]

In general, the more local anything can be the better.

I've seen the ugly side of local. When local fails, to whom do you appeal in this more-power-to-the-states system?

[Junior]

 

 

Well hang on, now. What are we talking about when we say "state's rights?"

 

Most of the time, you can read between the lines and get to the real point of "I don't like this new federal law. Something Something State's Rights!"

 

Yeah....I choose to ignore the blow hards on that and try to look at a common sense approach. Yes, there are things the feds do better and yes, there are things the states and local municipalities do better.

 

In general, the more local anything can be the better.

 

 

 

But why, and how? If federal government can be inefficient and corrupt, why is local government thought to be immune?