3 ms·

Of course, regulation by the state and individual liberty are in tension. No one forgot that; it’s the basis of our system. The argument that states can regula

Of course, regulation by the state and individual liberty are in tension. No one forgot that; it’s the basis of our system. The argument that states can regulate marijuana relies on a right reserved to the states: the states’ police powers. The argument that states can allow slavery directly contradicts the thirteenth amendment, where an individual’s natural right is stated. Arguing that an individual is free because god gave him that right is very different than arguing that a state can do something because of federalism. The justification on one side is that the individual’s right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and security is sacrosanct. The argument on the other side is that the polis takes priority over the individual. They are opposite arguments that must be balanced, not “the same argument.” What they are is two sides of the same dispute, which is what I think you might mean. am I close?

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
As most internet arguments, the original examples were a bit flippant, pot and slavery at opposite extremes. Yes, the shifting balance between some natural order and polis/federalism. I am saying 'same argument' you are saying 'opposite arguments'. I am meaning the same thing. It is the balance line, I was saying 'same argument' as in arguing over the point where to draw the line, not two different argument pushing from both sides. Yes, today, there is a 13 amendment. So technically slavery is settled? But I have heard many people use the argument that the Civil War was about 'states rights' (not slavery) in the context of today. As in re-contextualizing, saying that generally the causes of the Civil War, being 'States Rights', was actually correct, and Lincoln went too far trying to keep the Union Together. That the states should be allowed to do what they want, which generally would re-instate slavery. If a state were to secede, then the constitution would not apply. And generally that is the argument, that the central government has over-reached, and we should split. Of course, nobody is saying bring back slavery. What is being said is that we need to join the Church and State into one, form a theocracy, and women will really just be for babies. That is an actual position people are taking today, and they use the 'states-rights' as an argument.
- afpx 2y ago
  A state could theoretically devolve into one that doesn't reflect the values of the federation. It could begin to resemble countries that already exist today that the US doesn't do much about. The unfortunate part is that the constitution doesn't (currently) provide a way to kick out such a state. On the other hand, the constitution asserts at least some rights, and the federal government has authority to enforce federal laws (which could be passed to prohibit state actions). Also, residents of those states could freely move to other states.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    It is a conundrum. What makes a country, it's parts, but it's parts all the way down to the individual. At what point does it 'break apart'. Or re-form. Didn't Monico try to secede from France? Wasn't there a couple provinces in Spain that were trying to leave. And Ontario has had some movement to leave Canada for awhile. It seems like every group, no matter the size, will eventually have some sub group that wants to leave. It almost seems like human nature, as soon as you feel like the 'group' is infringing on you as 'individual' and enough people that feel that same way will 're-group' and form a new entity. The US holds itself on a pedestal. But I really think it is more geography that lead to the little cohesiveness it has. Lots of ocean boarders, weak countries on the others. Throw the US into the middle of Europe, with same pressures from all around, and internal conflict, and then does it become the Austria-Hungary Empire? What about the US is making it special, except luck. I don't have any answer. But I do think that the US is 'stronger together' no matter what the internal disagreements. Just as a Nation, with the need to organize, defend. Given the geography, The US States are stronger together. Any break apart would reduce the remaining factions to less than they are now.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

As most internet arguments, the original examples were a bit flippant, pot and slavery at opposite extremes. Yes, the shifting balance between some natural order and polis/federalism. I am saying 'same argument' you are saying 'opposite arguments'. I am meaning the same thing. It is the balance line, I was saying 'same argument' as in arguing over the point where to draw the line, not two different argument pushing from both sides. Yes, today, there is a 13 amendment. So technically slavery is settled? But I have heard many people use the argument that the Civil War was about 'states rights' (not slavery) in the context of today. As in re-contextualizing, saying that generally the causes of the Civil War, being 'States Rights', was actually correct, and Lincoln went too far trying to keep the Union Together. That the states should be allowed to do what they want, which generally would re-instate slavery. If a state were to secede, then the constitution would not apply. And generally that is the argument, that the central government has over-reached, and we should split. Of course, nobody is saying bring back slavery. What is being said is that we need to join the Church and State into one, form a theocracy, and women will really just be for babies. That is an actual position people are taking today, and they use the 'states-rights' as an argument.

afpx 2y ago
A state could theoretically devolve into one that doesn't reflect the values of the federation. It could begin to resemble countries that already exist today that the US doesn't do much about. The unfortunate part is that the constitution doesn't (currently) provide a way to kick out such a state. On the other hand, the constitution asserts at least some rights, and the federal government has authority to enforce federal laws (which could be passed to prohibit state actions). Also, residents of those states could freely move to other states.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  It is a conundrum. What makes a country, it's parts, but it's parts all the way down to the individual. At what point does it 'break apart'. Or re-form. Didn't Monico try to secede from France? Wasn't there a couple provinces in Spain that were trying to leave. And Ontario has had some movement to leave Canada for awhile. It seems like every group, no matter the size, will eventually have some sub group that wants to leave. It almost seems like human nature, as soon as you feel like the 'group' is infringing on you as 'individual' and enough people that feel that same way will 're-group' and form a new entity. The US holds itself on a pedestal. But I really think it is more geography that lead to the little cohesiveness it has. Lots of ocean boarders, weak countries on the others. Throw the US into the middle of Europe, with same pressures from all around, and internal conflict, and then does it become the Austria-Hungary Empire? What about the US is making it special, except luck. I don't have any answer. But I do think that the US is 'stronger together' no matter what the internal disagreements. Just as a Nation, with the need to organize, defend. Given the geography, The US States are stronger together. Any break apart would reduce the remaining factions to less than they are now.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]