"States' Rights?"

[Brian]

This thread is inspired by an exchange within the Satanic Temple thread, specifically this post:

<snip>

...there seems to be a love of states rights by you.

I thought I would take a moment to share my thoughts on the topic.

 

First, the term "states' rights" is incorrect. Only individuals have rights, not collections or objects. An appropriate term would be something along the lines of "delegation of authority" or "investment of power." A right is the freedom to express one's personal energy in accordance with one's own free will, subject to contraint against impingment upon another's personal energy or free will. A right cannot compel thought or deed and does not allow one to encumber the resources of another.

 

We are individuals. We sometimes choose to cooperate with each other in a mutually beneficial arrangement (although sometimes the benefit is abstract) but this cooperation MUST be voluntary -- otherwise it is involuntary servitude.

 

We have the freedom to invest our personal energy, or the manifestations thereof, in a collective. This does not result in a transfer of "rights" to the collective but may result in the collective being delegated certain authorities to exercise on our behalf. This delegation is generally (and should be) limited in scope, clearly delineated and either limited in duration or established with avenues whereby the individuals can terminate the delegation or dissolve the agreement. In this manner, we voluntarily enter into a book club or a sports team or a quilting bee or a domestic partnership or a business partnership or an employment contract or a neighborhood association or a city residency or a county residency or a state citizenship, for instance.

 

As an example, I may choose to move into a neighborhood in which I voluntarily agree (by choosing to move into that neighborhood) to participate in a home owners association. That HOA may be authorized to spend money to maintain commons areas and may be authorized to make sure everyone's mailboxes are the same (or whatever) but these powers are extensions of our individual energies and free wills, respectively. The HOA has no intrinsic existence or native authority or collective rights other than that which is voluntarily invested by the individuals through their own personal energy. The elected leaders of the HOA probably don't have the authority to decide to establish roadblocks to ensure no one is bringing chardonnay into the neighborhood regardless of how strongly they feel about that particular varietal, unless they have been granted that authority by the residents of the neighborhood through the HOA's bylaws.

 

Expanding out some, a community might grow to sufficient size and may choose to incorporate into a city. The residents can then establish rules for the management of their collective resources (a fraction of the residents' personal energies or manifestations thereof, freely given), can select representatives from their midst to be hired to exercise delegated authorities and to provide stewardship of resources, can establish ordinances & an enforcement mechanism, and can devise a methodology and structure whereby individuals contribute to the operation, maintenance and growth of the city, in accordance with the delineated rules for this delegation of authority. The city in and of itself has no power or authority and derives both strictly from a voluntary investment/delegation by its residents.

 

Each HOA and each city is a separate collective. If one neighborhood chooses to ban yellow "bug lights" on front porches and another to require them, that should be totally at the discretion of the residents of the respective neighborhoods. Likewise, if one city wishes to build lots of parks & greenspaces and require recycling while another chooses to establish sign ordinances, that should be the prerogotive of the residents of those cities. Residents unhappy with the choices being made, or with the tax implications caused by those choices, can participate in the process to influence the decision-making or can "vote with their feet."

 

It would be a horrible thing if every bridge club was required to serve the same refreshments or every neighborhood was required to paint houses from the same palette or every city was required to have the same soft-drink ordinance or every domestic partnership was required to have the same sexual practices, wouldn't it? Choice is a good thing and choosing to NOT join a bridge club or to NOT live in a restricted neighborhood or to live in an unincorporated area or to be single should be valid choices. It should be incumbent on the individuals composing each collection or association to be no more restrictive and far-reaching than is deemed necessary, or at least to be cognizant of the impact of requirements being imposed, but if the citizens of Anyplace wish to require Tab & Triscuits be served at all bridge parties within city limits, so be it. Participants in various associations can then observe the expectations & results of other associations and can work to modify their own associations or alter their memberships in such associations as they feel appropriate.

 

Stepping out a bit more, an individual who may or may not be a participant in one or more voluntary associations is probably also a participant at a state level. Whether that state is Argentina or Australia or Austria or Alabama, the citizens of each state should be able to establish their own unique structure for delegation of authority and investment of energy. The citizens of each state may choose to establish some expectations which reach inside associations nested within and may establish other expectations which can be overridden by those nested establishments. For instance, the citizens of a state may choose to require motor vehicles to turn on headlights when windshield wipers are on but may allow residents of towns within that state to decide whether curbside recycling is needed. The citizens of a neighboring state may make a different set of choices and the citizens can choose to accept those choices, to work to change them according to the established processes, or can move to a state which better fits their wishes.

 

One of the choices the citizens of a state may have is the option to delegate some portion of their authority and to invest some portion of their personal energy in union with the citizens of one or more other states. This is similar, for instance, to the members of several bowling teams joining together to form a league -- it doesn't mean the individual bowlers lose their ability to bowl outside of tournaments, or mean the separate teams lose the ability to pick colors for team bowling shirts (an authority delegated to the team by the individuals) but the individuals may choose to delegate some authorities to the league rather than to the team. Again, these associations MUST be voluntary -- just as a bowler may chose to leave a team or the members of a team to collectively leave a league, so goes it with an association of states; it is only legitimate if the individuals deem it so. This applies whether the association of states is the European Union or the United Nations or the former Soviet Union or the United States of America.

 

As to the USA, specifically, this is not just a philosophical musing, it is codified in the original agreements, along with a very specific and functional set of processes for enacting change. Is the Constitution itself a "living document?" Absolutely not, but there IS a clearly established and well used process for the citizens of the association to effect changes by way of amendments to that constitution. (Additionally, there is a clearly documented but as-yet unused process for the citizens of the association to effect changes by way of amendments if those selected to represent the individual citizens at the level of the union of states choose to ignore rule of law but that's a topic for a different thread.) If the individuals who compose a state wish to alter the foundational rules and assumptions by which that association operates, there is a lawful process for doing so; likewise, if the individuals who compose the states which in turn compose a union of states wish to alter the foundational rules and assumptions by which this association of associations operates, there is a lawful process for doing so.

 

(As an aside, read Article I of the Treaty of Paris from 1783. http://www.treatyofparis.com/ Notice that the individual colonies are recognized to be "free independent and sovereign states" by name rather than the union of states being recognized as a single sovereign state. This was not an accident...)

 

The 19th Amendment allowing women to vote in national elections is an excellent example of this lawful process being used to correct something the individual citizens collectively wished to correct. The 18th and 21st Amendments, prohibiting alcohol and then repealing that prohibition, are also excellent examples of rule-of-law in action. The so-called Civil War, on the other hand, is an excellent example of what can happen when rule-of-law is discarded in the name of expedience.

 

So, am I a fan of so-called "states' rights" and rule-of-law? Sure! Bet you are, too, gentle reader -- unless you are saying you think the entire planet should operate according to the laws currently in place within The Great State of North Carolina...

[Aetherous]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

The original plan: "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."

[Brian]

Yes, and the 10^th is an explicit reinforcement of the same principle in the Constitution itself. The amendment process can, be, should be and has been used to modify the original set of enumerated powers, and this is still the proper process.

[ralis]

 

 

The so-called Civil War, on the other hand, is an excellent example of what can happen when rule-of-law is discarded in the name of expedience.

 

 

 

So called Civil War? It was just that, in spite of persons in the South calling it 'the war between the states'. What rule-of-law was discarded?

 

Given that I am current on the political situation in NC, it would be in other readers interest for you to explain your position on such matters. NC is not a great state and is moving far to the right. Replete with bigotry, Art Pope (ally of the Koch bros.) a tool of corruption, egregious new anti voting rights laws and so forth.

[Brian]

I say "so-called" because there was nothing "civil" about it.

 

Slavery was legal at that time and, because the Constitution said it was legal, the appropriate course of action was a constitutional amendment to change that.

 

Instead, the Republican party clearly expressed its intention to march into slave-holding states and take the law into its own hands. Before that could happen, a peaceful succession began under President Buchanan. Once President Lincoln was sworn in, however, he basically declared that no state would ever be allowed to leave the union under any circumstances (even though seven states had already done so) and he ordered a defense of Fort Sumpter (along with several other forts which were under a truce pending negotiations for the hand-over -- Lincoln sent troops and armament in hopes of provoking fire). After a brief exchange of fire with the cadets from The Citadel, though, the fort was handed over without a single casualty on either side (well, except when the departing troops asked to fire a salute and accidentally blew up one of their own cannons...)

 

Three days later, Lincoln ordered Virginia to form an army and invade the sovereign state of South Carolina, which they refused to do. Left with no option, Virginia succeeded two days after that.

 

Almost every battle throughout the entire war was fought on Confederate soil because this was a war of Confederate defense and Union offense (hence the common name in the years that followed of "The War of Northern Aggression"). Lincoln also invaded and occupied those Union states which objected to what they considered an unconstitutional war, suspended habeas corpus, seized a couple hundred Northern newspapers and imprisoned thousands of Northern protestors. The war's close was punctuated by Sherman's infamous "March to the Sea," highlighted by rape, pillage, murder of civilians, and the torching of homes and cities.

 

Sound "civil" to you? Sound like the "rule-of-law" approach to solving a problem?

 

Your bigotry towards the Southeastern US, and towards North Carolina in particular, is quite evident in this post as in many others you have posted in the past. I feel no obligation to attempt to "prove you wrong" as it would be a waste of e-breath. My reference to The Great State of North Carolina is historical (http://govsites.org/sites.cfm/north%20carolina.html) and your opinion is irrelevant -- if you don't like NC, don't move here! In fact, I'd encourage you to just stay out. Your bigotry and ignorance aren't likely to earn you much of a welcome. I'd encourage everyone else to come visit, though, and see for yourself!

 

It is curious, though, that your response to my post (which was in response to a post by YOU specifically asking for my opinion on this topic) did not address the substance of my post but glommed onto the phrases "so-called 'Civil War,'" "rule-of-law," and "Great State of North Carolina" -- and then moved to current Progressive talking points. I guess that means you would rather keep the laws of your state separate from the laws of my state? That, my friend, makes you an advocate of so-called "states' rights."

 

Edited January 9, 2014 by Brian

[zerostao]

North Carolina is a wonderful state of natural beauty and friendly folks. I often intended to venture to the Carolina coast but every single time became sidetracked in the mountains, no complaints! many moons ago me and dad took a road trip down there somewhere to go trout fishing. we each caught a trout of about 6 inches or so hahaha but what a fabulous trip.

everytime I pass thru Ashville I feel its special energy.

 

"states rights" allows folks to 'vote' with their feet, so to speak. I prefer diversity and preservation of local cultural traditions rather than mandates from a highly centralized govt that has the only goal of spreading a bleak stark homogeneous landscape and mandated 'morals' upon us and erasing individuality.

one size does not fit all, what works in New York may not work so well in Colorado, what works in Texas may not work out in Oregon, etc

[joeblast]

"State's rights" are nothing more than a recognition of limited federal powers - gutted over and over, until we're dealing with an autonomous leviathan that protects its own interests far in advance of its perceived interests of its perceived subjects.

 

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.
- Adolf Hitler"

[Brian]

"Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail."

 

John C. Calhoun, 1831

[soaring crane]

"(As an aside, read Article I of the Treaty of Paris from 1783. http://www.treatyofparis.com/ Notice that the individual colonies are recognized to be "free independent and sovereign states" by name rather than the union of states being recognized as a single sovereign state. This was not an accident...)"

 

I have a modern rxsmple (that I just learned of). Each state has a separate agreement with the German government regarding transfer of driver's licences for their citizens who move Germany. For residents of some states , a full set of driving lessons, plus first aid a very difficult written exam followed by a practical exam are required while residents of other states only need to pass the written exam and - bam - they get their German driver's license.

 

I say this because I'm from new York and had to go the full monty. Took months and cost me about one and a half thousand dollars. A friend of mine from Texas just finished the same process.

 

But a girl from Florida I know just got hers with only the written test.

 

My buddy and me are both like, Florida? They're like the worst drivers in the country. So I looked into it and the map of states that have this or that agreement seems totally arbitrary.

 

I'm writing this now because I'm actually kind of venting here haha ;-)

 

PS - and correcting autocorrect grrrrr

Edited January 10, 2014 by soaring crane

[ralis]

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.

- Adolf Hitler"

 

Who are you referring to? Did you pick that one up from your favorite Libertarian/Tea Bagger site? I seriously doubt you have studied the history of that era, read any historical documentation or even books documenting the horror of the Nazi regime! I guess It is fun to quote while ignoring facts, which proves what?

Edited January 10, 2014 by ralis

[joeblast]

retract the claws, discard your progressive-lens and look at it objectively, ralis. I dont know what you mean by who are you referring to. the quote stands well on its own with no other context outside of what a great many governments are doing these days. what percentage of the population do you believe has any idea what its government is doing?

[ralis]

retract the claws, discard your progressive-lens and look at it objectively, ralis. I dont know what you mean by who are you referring to. the quote stands well on its own with no other context outside of what a great many governments are doing these days. what percentage of the population do you believe has any idea what its government is doing?

 

I know exactly what the government is doing so don't accuse me of seeing the world though 'rose colored glasses'. My objection is in regards to the propaganda of Libertarian Ayn Rand objectivism being foisted on the gullible public. The divisive issue of 'states rights' is based on Libertarian values and most have not thought it through. I have asked for concrete examples as to what 'state's rights' entails and the answers given are vague generalizations that lack critical thinking.

 

For example, what if the majority in a given state were to institute the owning of slaves as a legal right? What about a state sponsored religion? If an atheist refused to comply with a right wing oppressive state religion, what are the legal consequences for that individual? There are some in Oklahoma that believe that Christianity is the religion of that state. The fundamentalists refer to Oklahoma as 'faith based'. That is code for right wing 'Southern Baptist' fundamentalism.

 

What about a tyranny of a small minority over a majority? Right now there is a legal battle over same sex marriage. Fundamentalists believe that this nation was founded on Christian principles and same sex marriage is illegal/immoral and some states such as Utah are fighting to keep it that way. Marriage has become a state/church sponsored legal affair.

 

Have you read this thread? http://thetaobums.com/topic/33313-oklahoma-usa-christains-again-15-year-old-student-suspended-for-casting-a-wiccan-spell-on-her-teacher/#entry513653

Edited January 10, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

What if California wanted to extend employee protection laws to include victims of stalking in addition to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse?

 

What if New York wanted to raise the minimum wage to $8/hr?

 

What if Colorado wanted to legalize recreational use of marijuana? (An interesting nullification situation, actually...)

 

What if Maine wanted to increase the availability of mental health services?

 

What if Illinois wanted to increase the maximum speed limit on rural highways from 65 to 70?

 

Are you seriously saying that only the central government should have the authority to make such decisions and that all laws must be uniform across all 50 states???

[ralis]

North Carolina's new voter ID laws are being challenged by the DOJ. Some might argue that NC has every right to require ID, limit early voting, eliminate same day registration and so forth. Yet this was never an issue until Obama took office along with SCOTUS gutting the 'Voting Rights Act (section 4). The states that were required to submit documentation to the DOJ to change voting laws before this irrational decision by SCOTUS, rushed to make drastic changes within 48 hours to pass restrictive new laws. Those same states were the most egregious in voting rights violations against African Americans (Jim Crow Laws).

 

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/30/227591062/justice-department-to-sue-north-carolina-over-voter-id-law

Edited January 10, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

Curious that you don't seem to mind the existence of voter ID laws in Michigan or New Hampshire or Hawaii or Delaware. Is your issue with Southern states or with states in which Democrat politicians were guilty of voting rights violations half a century ago or what?

 

Did you support the national voter ID effort in 2002? That would have bypassed the "states' rights" thing and was before Obama was on the scene.

[ralis]

Curious that you don't seem to mind the existence of voter ID laws in Michigan or New Hampshire or Hawaii or Delaware. Is your issue with Southern states or with states in which Democrat politicians were guilty of voting rights violations half a century ago or what?

 

Did you support the national voter ID effort in 2002? That would have bypassed the "states' rights" thing and was before Obama was on the scene.

 

I said the states that were restricted under the Voting Rights Act which would include all states that seek to restrict voting rights. The Southern states were the worst!

 

List of Jim Crow laws. Note that almost every state is Southern with the exception of Wyoming.

 

http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/origins/images/jimcrowlaws.pdf

 

 

The states that were required to submit documentation to the DOJ to change voting laws before this irrational decision by SCOTUS, rushed to make drastic changes within 48 hours to pass restrictive new laws. Those same states were the most egregious in voting rights violations against African Americans (Jim Crow Laws).

Edited January 10, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

What if California wanted to extend employee protection laws to include victims of stalking in addition to victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse?

 

What if New York wanted to raise the minimum wage to $8/hr?

 

What if Colorado wanted to legalize recreational use of marijuana? (An interesting nullification situation, actually...)

 

What if Maine wanted to increase the availability of mental health services?

 

What if Illinois wanted to increase the maximum speed limit on rural highways from 65 to 70?

 

Are you seriously saying that only the central government should have the authority to make such decisions and that all laws must be uniform across all 50 states???

 

Not every law is needs to be scrutinized by the DOJ. However, when it comes to tyranny, discrimination, equal rights, corruption and so forth a central government is of necessity.

 

Amazing how your state is allowing corruption at the highest levels and you say nothing. Art Pope is the symbol of corruption and I suppose that is a right if the people of NC deem it so?

Edited January 10, 2014 by ralis

[Green Tiger]

What if Colorado wanted to legalize recreational use of marijuana? (An interesting nullification situation, actually...)

 

I was a little surprised the Feds let that go without a struggle. Says good things about respect for state's rights and disillusionment about the so-called 'war on drugs.'

 

Interesting side note, I read yesterday that the new cannabis industry made $5 million in 5 days, which sounds great, but one little hiccup: they can't put any of it in a federally insured bank.

 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/78489/colorado-made-5-million-in-5-days-off-pot-the-problem-it-s-illegal-to-put-the-money-in-federal-banks

[ralis]

The whole problem with the Libertarian argument is based on the ideology of basic human goodness that will surface if given enough freedom from a perceived tyranny of a central government or any external authority. Furthermore, private property rights plays a major role in Ayn Rand's Libertarian ideology. More on this later.

 

Hobbes would not agree with the silly notion that humans are best left to their own devices.

[ralis]

I was a little surprised the Feds let that go without a struggle. Says good things about respect for state's rights and disillusionment about the so-called 'war on drugs.'

 

Interesting side note, I read yesterday that the new cannabis industry made $5 million in 5 days, which sounds great, but one little hiccup: they can't put any of it in a federally insured bank.

 

http://www.policymic.com/articles/78489/colorado-made-5-million-in-5-days-off-pot-the-problem-it-s-illegal-to-put-the-money-in-federal-banks

 

The Feds are realizing that the 'war on drugs' is an abject failure.

[zerostao]

"Hobbes would not agree with the silly notion that humans are best left to their own devices."

and Locke disagrees, where are you going with this?

you are suggesting we all just sign all of our 'rights' away as individuals and bow down to an absolutist authority ? i thought you were against the extravagant abuses of nsa etc?

[ralis]

"Hobbes would not agree with the silly notion that humans are best left to their own devices."

and Locke disagrees, where are you going with this?

 

 

I am talking about human nature and the well documented atrocities throughout history when persons are given far too much liberty. I honestly don't see humans as basically good. History does not indicate that. Europe in the first 45 years of the twentieth century bears that out. The worst atrocities in history occurred then which were brought about by ideologues and demagoguery.

 

Thomas Hobbes; 'Leviathan'

For in a way beset with those that contend on one side for too great Liberty, and on the other side for too much Authority, 'tis hard to passe between the points of both unwounded.

[Brian]

Ummm... no.

 

I'm not saying that people will invariably make good and noble decisions if just left alone. Instead, I am saying that the boundaries of the District of Columbia are not a magic force-field against stupidity & corruption, regardless of party affiliation. Giving a small group of people over whom you have no control absolute authority is a bad idea and making that authority unlimited in scope or geographic reach is a really bad idea.

 

You seem to like the idea of an unfettered statist regime but I don't. Will your position that the President (for whom DOJ works, after all) should decide who is allowed self-governance and on which issues change if the White House and both houses of Congress are controlled by the Tea Party in 2016? Personally, I like the idea of "right-wing" authoritarianism no more than I do "left-wing" authoritarianism.

[ralis]

"Hobbes would not agree with the silly notion that humans are best left to their own devices."

and Locke disagrees, where are you going with this?

you are suggesting we all just sign all of our 'rights' away as individuals and bow down to an absolutist authority ? i thought you were against the extravagant abuses of nsa etc?

 

Not saying that at all. I am arguing (with a few examples in previous posts) against the push for extremist 'state's rights' that some feel a need for. Their arguments are not based on reason but reaction to authority. Furthermore, there is an ideological basis for this movement based on the writings of Ayn Rand which I doubt any of the purveyors of far reaching 'state's rights' have read.State's right can become a movement of fascist ideology which the city states in Italy are a classic example.

[Green Tiger]

You guys might be interested in this: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/01/nz_most_free_country_on_earth.html

 

 

He discusses how New Zealand was recently declared the "most free" country in the world. They based the decision on a number of factors, ranked 1-10.

 

 

 

The factors involved in the freedom ratings and NZ scores out of 10 are:

• Extrajudicial Killing 10
• Torture 10
• Political Imprisonment 10
• Disappearance 10
• Battle-related Deaths 10
• Level of organized conflict 10
• Female Genital Mutilation
• Son Preference
• Homicide 9.4
• Human Trafficking 10
• Sexual Violence 0.9
• Assault 9.5
• Level of perceived criminality in society 7.5
• Theft 0
• Burglary 0
• Inheritance
• Hostility to foreigners & their private property 10
• SECURITY & SAFETY SUB-TOTAL 7.7
• Forcibly Displaced Populations 10
• Freedom of Foreign Movement 10
• Freedom of Domestic Movement 10
• Women’s Freedom of Movement
• MOVEMENT SUB-TOTAL 10
• Press Killings 10
• Freedom of Speech 10
• Laws and regulations that influence media content 9.3
• Political pressures and controls on media content 8.8
• Dress code in public
• EXPRESSION SUB-TOTAL 9.5
• Freedom of Assembly and Association 10
• Parental Authority
• Religion – Government Restrictions 9.6
• Religion – Social Hostility 9.1
• Male to Male Relationship 10
• Female to Female Relationship 10
• Age of Consent for Homosexual Couples 10
• Adoption by Homosexuals
• RELATIONSHIPS SUB-TOTAL 9.8