Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with the "states' rights" argument is that you only support it if you identify with the dominant party in that state. For example, a person who probably supports Colorado's right to legalize marijuana would probably have a different stance on a state like Oklahoma deciding defy the federal government to ban abortion or same-sex marriage. It becomes even more complicated when you consider that few states are all blue or all red. In conservative states what you typically have is the rural areas deciding and imposing their will on the urban areas. Urban areas in Texas would probably support legalizing marijuana for instance but the dominance of rural interests over urban ones make that a pipe dream. In other states that are urban dominated, typically the cities impose policies that the rural areas do not support. This can all be resolved if we can abolish Dillon's Rule and allow more local control at the city level. The downside of this is there would be a huge confusing patchwork of varying laws and policies not only from state to state but from municipality to municipality. It must not interfere with free movement throughout the country. Does anybody think this could possibly be a solution?
I really don't. I think the state majority should control the destiny of that state and for those that don't politically align, the choice is to move or compromise. If we are to have states rights, those rights should be voted on by a majority vote. There's only a few purple states where the outcome may change from time to time, the rest would be pretty stable.
The simple answer, from THIS Libertarian's view, is to quit criminalizing acts which do not encroach upon the rights or property of another. Just because some folks "don't like" an action or an inaction does not give them the right to criminalize that action or inaction. No one is compelling those who "don't like" something to do or not do whatever it is. If they "don't like" whatever it is, they shouldn't do or not do whatever it is they "don't like".
Why do I include inaction in my comment above? I include it because in almost every State, I am a criminal who can be fined or jailed if I choose to not wear my seat belt in a vehicle. Yes the inaction of not protecting myself via a seat belt is a criminal offense. By what right does another person look at me and demand I MUST protect myself by wearing a seat belt when I am in a vehicle if that inaction does not encroach upon the rights or property of another? Some would argue that if I am hurt in an accident, I could cause their insurance rates to raise. Others argue that they would be left footing my medical bills in the way of higher medical costs if I didn't have insurance or had insufficient insurance. To this I argue that I and my estate are responsible for my medical costs, not you or anyone else, but the same mindset which was used to compel people to wear seat belts was used in compelling folks to have insurance.
Again, I have written this in one manner or another on these boards at least 100 times... If an action or inaction does not encroach upon the rights or property of another, by what right does anyone demand to criminalize that action or inaction?
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
I really don't. I think the state majority should control the destiny of that state and for those that don't politically align, the choice is to move or compromise. If we are to have states rights, those rights should be voted on by a majority vote. There's only a few purple states where the outcome may change from time to time, the rest would be pretty stable.
Even in each State, the form of government is a Constitutional Republican form of government where the government is supposed to be strictly limited to act only upon that which it has a constitutional enumeration to act. Many/most of the State laws and regulations do NOT fall under a specific enumeration for the State to act. We do NOT live in a democracy styled government where the majority can vote to remove the rights of the minority. I realize this example is extreme BUT that is what can be done when one believes the majority will should dominate.
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
What I don't understand is why you as a far left Liberal continue to live in a far right state like Oklahoma.
I believe it's the 10th Amendment that gives States Rights they don't vote to the Federal Govt. That should be local enough.
If you don't like your state, move to one you do like.
Why don't you move from the place you consider a hell hole to someplace you would like. Your life would be so much better.
There are a thousand liberal cities you would like. Stop complaining about the one you pick to live in.
Stop being a victim. Move to Austin and keep Austin even weirder.
What you describe pretty much already exists in many places.
City states = tribalism = anarchy = violence. That's the democrat ideology at its foundation.
So you support states having the right to ban cities from raising minimum wage, banning fracking, and not banning plastic sacks or smoking cigarettes in public spaces for starters.
What I don't understand is why you as a far left Liberal continue to live in a far right state like Oklahoma.
I believe it's the 10th Amendment that gives States Rights they don't vote to the Federal Govt. That should be local enough.
If you don't like your state, move to one you do like.
Why don't you move from the place you consider a hell hole to someplace you would like. Your life would be so much better.
There are a thousand liberal cities you would like. Stop complaining about the one you pick to live in.
Stop being a victim. Move to Austin and keep Austin even weirder.
What you describe pretty much already exists in many places.
As for me, some of us are simply highly devoted homebodies. I asked online of a young guy in his 20s, who supports legalized medical marijuana, why he continues to live in a rural Oklahoma county that soundly voted against legalizing medical marijuana. He said, "Because it's home". Fortunately, the Oklahoma county I live in isn't one of the backward ones.
Interesting how my ancestors from Europe came to America dating since early colonial times and moved westward from generation to generation, some all the way to California. My grandparents on both sides settled in early day Oklahoma. Yet, all the members of my family elected to stay put in the general same area of Oklahoma. So don't know where wanting to be a homebody came from.
Even in each State, the form of government is a Constitutional Republican form of government where the government is supposed to be strictly limited to act only upon that which it has a constitutional enumeration to act. Many/most of the State laws and regulations do NOT fall under a specific enumeration for the State to act. We do NOT live in a democracy styled government where the majority can vote to remove the rights of the minority. I realize this example is extreme BUT that is what can be done when one believes the majority will should dominate.
But then again, that's just MY opinion, for what it's worth.
We have a government where the minority can and does control the majority but within the states, a majority vote carries the decision.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
