5 ms·

States have pushed for gay marriage reform, sane drug policy and now this. Can we agree supporting states rights doesn’t make you a racist now?

wkearney99 9y ago
Being a racist.. made you a racist. Hiding behind 'states rights' was just an excuse. So, no, being a racist bigot trying to justify the civil war by trotting out "states rights" still gets you labeled as such. But yes, it's rich irony seeing the states raising these issues.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > it's rich irony seeing the states raising these issues Decentralised decision making is a large component of the American system’s resilience. At its worst, it’s a pressure release valve which shows us the negative effects of bad policy in a controlled setting (e.g. North Carolina’s bathroom bill). At its best, it promotes policy experimentation which can later scale, having been demonstrated to work, to the national stage (e.g. California’s clean air rules).
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't post ideological rants or personal attacks to Hacker News, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Also, could you please take the following guideline to heart in the future? "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Not doing so leads to the bottom of the barrel, and we're trying to do a bit better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
matt4077 9y ago
Very few people ever supported “state’s rights” on principle: not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to state. If you’re for legalization in Oregon, you’ll also be for legalization in Mississippi. Claiming “state’s rights” is therefore never more than a convenient argument when you want to avoid the substance of the issue. And if that substance is racist, you are likely to be called a racist no matter what.
- whatshisface 9y ago
  That's not a good argument at all. Thinking that legalization should happen in every state has nothing to do with thinking that it will probably happen in some states before others. Why would a legalization supporter want to make it a federal issue when fewer than 50% of states support the idea? If people with different views are concentrated in different areas, we can maximize total democracy (i.e. representation of citizen's opinions in government) by allowing them to pick their own local laws.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  I believe that local control is a very important aspect of a free people, especially in a country as large and diverse as the United States. States right is not a convenient excuse, it is a protection against totaliarism. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protected blacks, and States had to comply, and States right was a specious argument. It was a matter of Constitutional protection. But I firmly believe that most laws of governance should be state and local so there is choice, reasonable chances for an individual to effect change, and a lower bar to experiment with policy.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to state This over constrains "legalization" to a single dimension. Cannabis is a difficult policy space, marrying the complexity of liquor laws with the harm reduction imperatives of medicine and drug policy. Sample: medical versus recreational standards, personal limits (if any, and if so, what?), tax levels (quantity? dollar amount?), where to apply the taxes (consumer, retailer, distributor, and/or grower?), constrain grower or distributor size (+: more independent shops, -: higher costs), give this to alcohol regulators or create a new regulatory umbrella, what about the cash (state-chartered bank or credit union? criminality and money laundering concerns?), monitoring adolescent usage, risk education, heavy metals monitoring, et cetera.
distantsounds 9y ago
how about we just agree that those are fundamental rights that shouldn't require 50 individual states to implement separately?
CaptSpify 9y ago
I feel like I'm missing the context for this. Can you elaborate?
- whatshisface 9y ago
  Many Americans who live in former Confederate states say that the civil war was fought over the autonomy of the states vs. federal unification. Many Americans who live in former (and current, haha) Union states say that it was fought for the economic interests of rich Southern slaveholders. There's a lot of bad blood in this discussion as you can see!

wkearney99 9y ago

Being a racist.. made you a racist. Hiding behind 'states rights' was just an excuse. So, no, being a racist bigot trying to justify the civil war by trotting out "states rights" still gets you labeled as such. But yes, it's rich irony seeing the states raising these issues.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> it's rich irony seeing the states raising these issues Decentralised decision making is a large component of the American system’s resilience. At its worst, it’s a pressure release valve which shows us the negative effects of bad policy in a controlled setting (e.g. North Carolina’s bathroom bill). At its best, it promotes policy experimentation which can later scale, having been demonstrated to work, to the national stage (e.g. California’s clean air rules).
dang 9y ago
Please don't post ideological rants or personal attacks to Hacker News, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Also, could you please take the following guideline to heart in the future? "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." Not doing so leads to the bottom of the barrel, and we're trying to do a bit better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

matt4077 9y ago

Very few people ever supported “state’s rights” on principle: not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to state. If you’re for legalization in Oregon, you’ll also be for legalization in Mississippi. Claiming “state’s rights” is therefore never more than a convenient argument when you want to avoid the substance of the issue. And if that substance is racist, you are likely to be called a racist no matter what.

whatshisface 9y ago
That's not a good argument at all. Thinking that legalization should happen in every state has nothing to do with thinking that it will probably happen in some states before others. Why would a legalization supporter want to make it a federal issue when fewer than 50% of states support the idea? If people with different views are concentrated in different areas, we can maximize total democracy (i.e. representation of citizen's opinions in government) by allowing them to pick their own local laws.
SubiculumCode 9y ago
I believe that local control is a very important aspect of a free people, especially in a country as large and diverse as the United States. States right is not a convenient excuse, it is a protection against totaliarism. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protected blacks, and States had to comply, and States right was a specious argument. It was a matter of Constitutional protection. But I firmly believe that most laws of governance should be state and local so there is choice, reasonable chances for an individual to effect change, and a lower bar to experiment with policy.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> not a single of 5+ political issues mentioned in this threat have different answers from state to state This over constrains "legalization" to a single dimension. Cannabis is a difficult policy space, marrying the complexity of liquor laws with the harm reduction imperatives of medicine and drug policy. Sample: medical versus recreational standards, personal limits (if any, and if so, what?), tax levels (quantity? dollar amount?), where to apply the taxes (consumer, retailer, distributor, and/or grower?), constrain grower or distributor size (+: more independent shops, -: higher costs), give this to alcohol regulators or create a new regulatory umbrella, what about the cash (state-chartered bank or credit union? criminality and money laundering concerns?), monitoring adolescent usage, risk education, heavy metals monitoring, et cetera.

distantsounds 9y ago

how about we just agree that those are fundamental rights that shouldn't require 50 individual states to implement separately?

CaptSpify 9y ago

I feel like I'm missing the context for this. Can you elaborate?

whatshisface 9y ago
Many Americans who live in former Confederate states say that the civil war was fought over the autonomy of the states vs. federal unification. Many Americans who live in former (and current, haha) Union states say that it was fought for the economic interests of rich Southern slaveholders. There's a lot of bad blood in this discussion as you can see!