The fallacy of harping on "state's rights"

[BigRedBuster]

 

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?

 

If we are going to discredit a level of government because some times there are failures then we would be getting rid of all government from the feds on down to local school boards.

 

My point is, all levels are needed. All levels are good at certain things. All levels are bad at certain things.

 

In general, I prefer to look at things as local. If it really can't be handled at the local level, then look to the state level. If it really can't be handled there, then probably the federal level is better to do it. I prefer looking at it that way than starting at the federal level and making things this huge national political issue when possibly it is better handled at the state or local level. (or, a combination of some kind).

[LukeinNE]

 

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

 

 

Nobody is saying that local governments are immune from corruption and inefficiency. But it's pretty much a given that in small organizations, the scale of its f*ck ups will be smaller, and the organization itself will be far more responsive to pressure for change.

 

 

 

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!"

 

 

That sounds pretty similar to my objection to Elizabeth Warren's progressive checklist.

[NUance]

 

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?

 

 

U-Haul.

[Conga3]

 

 

 

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?

 

 

It's not immune. It's just easier to change if it's something you don't want. If you can't change it, you can go somewhere else.

 

---

 

An analogy might be a stadium's food choices.

 

I'm guessing folks on here have experienced both types.

 

In some stadiums, there is only ONE food vendor. They may be several varied food stands...but they get their food and employees from one central food vendor that oversees the entire stadium. The menu often repeats. Walk far enough around the stadium you'll see the exact same menu repeated over and over.

 

If you get a bad hotdog at one stand...walking to another concourse to find a different hotdog stand will likely produce the same poor result.

 

Even if the food is good, it's homogeneous. It's predictable. Nobody it taking any risks offering a different types of food, when burger, hotdog and nachos are successful enough staples.

 

Without competition, the single food vendor simply needs to maintain a minimum level of success.

 

--

 

The other type of stadium is the one that leases out the stands to multiple small food vendors.

 

There are often more choices in types of food and the food tends to be better since the vendors are competing with each other.

 

Without a central vendor dictating the menu, a vendor might sneak in some bad food options. After awhile though, people will go somewhere else and they won't be able to afford the lease...and a new vendor will replace them.

 

--

 

Where we decide to live is really no different.

 

Do you want choices? Or do you want a homogeneous system of government where the only difference in where you live is your address?

 

Should living in Nebraska be the same as living in California or New York? Or are the people different enough that they want to be governed differently?

[tschu]

I wanna live in the state where all guns of all size are legal, where there's no minimum wage, where you can masturbate openly in the street. Choices man. We gotta have choices.

[sd'sker]

I wanna live in the state where all guns of all size are legal, where there's no minimum wage, where you can masturbate openly in the street. Choices man. We gotta have choices.

yeah, especially with workers' rights and environmental protections, if it is every state for itself, it is just a race to the bottom.

[BigRedBuster]

 

I wanna live in the state where all guns of all size are legal, where there's no minimum wage, where you can masturbate openly in the street. Choices man. We gotta have choices.

yeah, especially with workers' rights and environmental protections, if it is every state for itself, it is just a race to the bottom.

 

Just for clarification, are you guys saying that because those things are better at the federal level that everything is better there? Because I don't think there is anyone on here claiming that nothing is better at the federal level and everything is better at the local level.

[strigori]

There are many reasons why the State's Rights is garbage, and outdated to even argue for. To start with this is one country, not a loose union like the EU. And many of the Federalization of rules comes out of settling disputes between states. And if people are smart, they really need to look at who is rabblerousing and bankrolling these pushes. Odds are its a big business that is looking to pollute or screw over workers. And these types have been very good at getting the red state people to push against their own self interests at every step. Hell, why stop at states rights, why not focus on county and town rights over states? There is always going to be someone unhappy that they are not allowed to do whatever the hell they want with no regard for the rest of the community.

 

The only people who think the EPA is overstepping are those upstream and upwind. If you are getting to deal with a chemical mess from someone farther upstream that is ruining your community or quality of life, you are going to want to have someone do something. Without any rules would you really want to see what the mouth of the Mississippi would look and smell like? It would be little more than an open sewer. Or financially backbreaking for the locals to try to clean up.

 

Setting minimum standards for working conditions and wages is there to maintain some level of equality among the states. And many states do take it upon themselves to make their standards higher. Nebraska will very likely be joining the states paying a minimum wage higher than the Federal after this next election.

 

Education, unfortunately, needs oversight from the feds. Or you can well end up with places not teaching science or math at all. (I'm looking at you Kansas and Texas) Again, it ends up being about the bear minimum standard, and states are free to do better than the rock bottom, though many will choose not to.

 

Women's rights, gay rights, and even sexual rights in general, obviously can not be trusted to states. As has had to be proven in court repeatedly.

 

The overall mentality of the big states rights group seems to be to turn back the clock to the 19th century.

[sd'sker]

 

 

I wanna live in the state where all guns of all size are legal, where there's no minimum wage, where you can masturbate openly in the street. Choices man. We gotta have choices.

yeah, especially with workers' rights and environmental protections, if it is every state for itself, it is just a race to the bottom.

 

Just for clarification, are you guys saying that because those things are better at the federal level that everything is better there? Because I don't think there is anyone on here claiming that nothing is better at the federal level and everything is better at the local level.

 

frankly, i do not really know what this conversation is about. i just get afraid when i hear about state's rights, mainly because of the concern of state's cannibalizing each other.

 

it does seem like america may be too big for the ideals of socrates and others to come to fruition. in that regard, i do believe the more local power the better. communities should largely have a say on how they are ran, but there should be a baseline set.

 

and i do think the federal gov't is the answer to some problems.

[tschu]

Education is one that doesn't get enough focus and can really be something that federal vs. state can truly be an argument. I think we'd all agree that a federal baseline needs to be set for some basic standards. Most of the current discussion comes from how to measure and enforce those standards. There should be local options for how to fill out elective classes and so forth (for example I grew up in a rural community and we had woodworking, welding, and ag classes - which suited the community very well). So it kind of comes down to where you want to draw the line.