4 ms·

Those states benefit from Fed money because they have multiple century debt from lack of investment. "States Rights" is just about slavery and wanting it back,

Those states benefit from Fed money because they have multiple century debt from lack of investment. "States Rights" is just about slavery and wanting it back, but that won't solve their problems with the investment they already are not doing and are unwilling to do.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
"States Rights" was about slavery in the 1860s, but I doubt that most people who are into small government today want slavery back.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  That was a large part of it, but it also had to do with taxation over building highways for trade in the north while the south had ample waterways to move trade goods... I'm not saying it wasn't about slavery as well, before anyone gets mad. EDIT: https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-about-the-civil-war-is-wrong-9e94f0118269 https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-about-th...
- downrightmike 4y ago
  Those people who want small government always expand governmental powers when they are in charge. Example 1: Look at what the SCOTUS just did about the 4th amendment having no power for 100 miles inland from the border.
rayiner 4y ago
This is a remarkably bad argument. Many countries around the world have some sort of federal system. People who agree with each other enough to participate in some level of government together, but not enough to participate in a unitary government together, is a common problem that exists around the world. Federalism is a solution to that problem around the world. Germany, for example, has "state's rights." Religious people in Bavaria decided that government buildings should display crosses (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/europe/bavaria-germany-crosses-public-buildings-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/europe/bavaria-germany-crosse...) and folks in Berlin don't get to veto that. When German press asked Angela Merkel why she wouldn't order a nationwide COVID lockdown, she explained German federalism, and the German press (which is much smarter than the American press) nodded and moved on. India features states that differ quite significantly in their healthcare systems or social laws. In Switzerland, a country the size of Maryland, laws on same-sex marriage differ between cantons until national consensus was reached less than two years ago. America is a country of 330 million people, and far more diverse than Germany or Switzerland. Why should we ignore the real need for flexibility and localism just because some people who are long dead abused federalism?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- downrightmike 4y ago
  Germany is not America. I'm not making the argument Federal power is bad, the people who benefit from it the most are, and are grifting the system by intentionally subverting anything that would improve their people's situation. Look at the build back better plan, they screwed that up and most of our highways are out of their operating life spans by more than double the original life time. Germany also was given a huge leg up after WW2 when all of FDR's constitution writers went over and basically gave you all the worker protections FDR wanted for the USA.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > Germany is not America. Different groups of people wanting to cooperate to some extent but not be micromanaged by other groups of people isn’t unique to Germany. Federalism keeps recurring because it solves a recurring human problem. > I'm not making the argument Federal power is bad, the people who benefit from it the most are, and are grifting the system by intentionally subverting anything that would improve their people's situation. I like to assume that people are acting rationally in their interest given their values and priorities. People disagree about what would “improve” their situation,” or what will be the real outcome of efforts undertaken to “improve the situation.” Last I checked people are moving from California to Texas, not the other way around. Let’s assume at the very least people rationally appreciate the trade offs of that. > Look at the build back better plan, they screwed that up and most of our highways are out of their operating life spans by more than double the original life time. And why do you assume that Build Back Better would address that problem? I used to be a transit fan. I dutifully road Amtrak and Metro and MARC to work for years. And you know what? I gave up, moved to the exurbs, and bought a big SUV. Because we can’t actually do infrastructure and we shouldn’t even try. My change of heart was bitterly confirmed true when I saw the BBB proposal for Amtrak (which last I checked planned to blow tens of billions of dollars without building any new track). Being from Bangladesh, I don’t actually believe that all cultures equally good at all things. Clearly Americans just can’t do things that require large scale coordination. Instead of beating our heads against the wall about it, we should just try to restructure our society to avoid those weaknesses.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

"States Rights" was about slavery in the 1860s, but I doubt that most people who are into small government today want slavery back.

UnpossibleJim 4y ago
That was a large part of it, but it also had to do with taxation over building highways for trade in the north while the south had ample waterways to move trade goods... I'm not saying it wasn't about slavery as well, before anyone gets mad. EDIT: https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-about-the-civil-war-is-wrong-9e94f0118269 https://medium.com/@jonathanusa/everything-you-know-about-th...
downrightmike 4y ago
Those people who want small government always expand governmental powers when they are in charge. Example 1: Look at what the SCOTUS just did about the 4th amendment having no power for 100 miles inland from the border.

rayiner 4y ago

This is a remarkably bad argument. Many countries around the world have some sort of federal system. People who agree with each other enough to participate in some level of government together, but not enough to participate in a unitary government together, is a common problem that exists around the world. Federalism is a solution to that problem around the world. Germany, for example, has "state's rights." Religious people in Bavaria decided that government buildings should display crosses (https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/europe/bavaria-germany-crosses-public-buildings-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/europe/bavaria-germany-crosse...) and folks in Berlin don't get to veto that. When German press asked Angela Merkel why she wouldn't order a nationwide COVID lockdown, she explained German federalism, and the German press (which is much smarter than the American press) nodded and moved on. India features states that differ quite significantly in their healthcare systems or social laws. In Switzerland, a country the size of Maryland, laws on same-sex marriage differ between cantons until national consensus was reached less than two years ago. America is a country of 330 million people, and far more diverse than Germany or Switzerland. Why should we ignore the real need for flexibility and localism just because some people who are long dead abused federalism?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
downrightmike 4y ago
Germany is not America. I'm not making the argument Federal power is bad, the people who benefit from it the most are, and are grifting the system by intentionally subverting anything that would improve their people's situation. Look at the build back better plan, they screwed that up and most of our highways are out of their operating life spans by more than double the original life time. Germany also was given a huge leg up after WW2 when all of FDR's constitution writers went over and basically gave you all the worker protections FDR wanted for the USA.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > Germany is not America. Different groups of people wanting to cooperate to some extent but not be micromanaged by other groups of people isn’t unique to Germany. Federalism keeps recurring because it solves a recurring human problem. > I'm not making the argument Federal power is bad, the people who benefit from it the most are, and are grifting the system by intentionally subverting anything that would improve their people's situation. I like to assume that people are acting rationally in their interest given their values and priorities. People disagree about what would “improve” their situation,” or what will be the real outcome of efforts undertaken to “improve the situation.” Last I checked people are moving from California to Texas, not the other way around. Let’s assume at the very least people rationally appreciate the trade offs of that. > Look at the build back better plan, they screwed that up and most of our highways are out of their operating life spans by more than double the original life time. And why do you assume that Build Back Better would address that problem? I used to be a transit fan. I dutifully road Amtrak and Metro and MARC to work for years. And you know what? I gave up, moved to the exurbs, and bought a big SUV. Because we can’t actually do infrastructure and we shouldn’t even try. My change of heart was bitterly confirmed true when I saw the BBB proposal for Amtrak (which last I checked planned to blow tens of billions of dollars without building any new track). Being from Bangladesh, I don’t actually believe that all cultures equally good at all things. Clearly Americans just can’t do things that require large scale coordination. Instead of beating our heads against the wall about it, we should just try to restructure our society to avoid those weaknesses.