4 ms·

i can understand not wanting power to be centralized in the hands of a faraway federal govt. but i dont understand the fetish of states rights. why not city rig

i can understand not wanting power to be centralized in the hands of a faraway federal govt. but i dont understand the fetish of states rights. why not city rights or county rights. or heaven forbid maybe even individual rights

hgsgm 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle—that's not allowed here, as you know, regardless of what politics/ideology you're battling for. It's also not cool to use a bunch of different accounts to post like this, or to get around moderation restrictions. We eventually ban the related accounts as well. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
int_19h 4y ago
It's a balancing act between individual rights and ability of the society to govern itself without disintegrating (at which point nobody would have any rights). But, yes, states are just as artificial as US as a whole. Municipalities feel like they're the lowest level organization that is actually somewhat organic and interconnected.
- dlp211 4y ago
  Individual rights are far more likely to be recognized at a Federal level than at the State level. The whole "states rights" non-sense is about the ability to restrict what or how other folks live.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Do you have any basis for this assertion? I find that my state constitution is far better than the federal one in most regards.
    - dlp211 4y ago
      And yet those rights cease to exist when you cross state lines. And yes, the Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment, formally Roe vs Wade, Brown v. BoE, etc. I will go a step further and say that ONLY the Federal government can secure your individual rights. If your rights can be erased by crossing a state line, then you don't have an individual right.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Your federal rights also "cease to exist" the moment you cross the national border. By the same logic, we should be striving for One World Government, and anything less than that is unacceptable. As for the federal government securing my individual rights in general - considering the existing federal drug laws, and the very real possibility of a federal abortion ban coming in a few years, I'd say you're cherry-picking here.

hgsgm 4y ago

dang 4y ago
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political/ideological battle—that's not allowed here, as you know, regardless of what politics/ideology you're battling for. It's also not cool to use a bunch of different accounts to post like this, or to get around moderation restrictions. We eventually ban the related accounts as well. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

int_19h 4y ago

It's a balancing act between individual rights and ability of the society to govern itself without disintegrating (at which point nobody would have any rights). But, yes, states are just as artificial as US as a whole. Municipalities feel like they're the lowest level organization that is actually somewhat organic and interconnected.

dlp211 4y ago
Individual rights are far more likely to be recognized at a Federal level than at the State level. The whole "states rights" non-sense is about the ability to restrict what or how other folks live.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Do you have any basis for this assertion? I find that my state constitution is far better than the federal one in most regards.
  - dlp211 4y ago
    And yet those rights cease to exist when you cross state lines. And yes, the Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment, formally Roe vs Wade, Brown v. BoE, etc. I will go a step further and say that ONLY the Federal government can secure your individual rights. If your rights can be erased by crossing a state line, then you don't have an individual right.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Your federal rights also "cease to exist" the moment you cross the national border. By the same logic, we should be striving for One World Government, and anything less than that is unacceptable. As for the federal government securing my individual rights in general - considering the existing federal drug laws, and the very real possibility of a federal abortion ban coming in a few years, I'd say you're cherry-picking here.