4 ms·

> With the recent federal block of click to cancel, states implementing this will be the way to go. State's rights is just about always the best way to go. It'

> With the recent federal block of click to cancel, states implementing this will be the way to go. State's rights is just about always the best way to go. It's nice to see the power being returned to the people.

xyst 1y ago
[flagged]
- ecshafer 1y ago
  States rights exist in the United States, regardless of if its been used for good or ill. The United States is a federation, and States Rights ARE a thing. States Rights are also used for professional licenses and insurance regulations, jumping to slavery is absurdism.
  - toomuchtodo 1y ago
    > "Slavery and States' Rights" was a speech given by former Confederate States Army general Joseph Wheeler on July 31, 1894. The speech deals with the American Civil War and is considered to be a "Lost Cause" view of the war's causation. It is generally understood to argue that the United States (the Union) was to blame for the war, and downplays slavery as a cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_States%27_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_States%27_Rights https://web.archive.org/web/20180427082228/http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20180427082228/http://www.civilw... https://news.wttw.com/2022/07/14/states-rights-supreme-court-and-history-discrimination https://news.wttw.com/2022/07/14/states-rights-supreme-court... This is simply history. Calling it absurdism indicates a lack of historical knowledge. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
    - salawat 1y ago
      History is written by the victors, and the fight never ends. Yesterday's Lost Cause remains just that until current affairs once more brings forth the need for a rebirth of old ideas. Big fan of cannabis legalization? Hop on the State's Rights bus. Don't think that one size fits all? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think that just because a psychopath is sitting in the highest Federal office, that the rest of the U.S. is obligated to help him? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think the Feds should be able to universally obliterate women's sovereignty to their own body? Hopefully welcome to the State's Rights bus until such time as we can get something back in play on the Federal level. It's a disservice to associate a fundamental characteristic of our structure of government with one particularly egregiously unpopular use of it, or to wholesale dismiss it because it tends to be associated with things a lot of people find unpopular. That's rather the point. Arizona or New Mexico can tell off Nevada, who can tell off Utah, or Maryland that how they (Utah/Maryland) do things doesn't fly here. If you've never been a State hopper, it doesn't quite click, but once you've traveled the U.S. and lived in several different regions for long enough periods of time, it clicks. Not all States are the same, and that's okay.
    - ecshafer 1y ago
      It is absurdism. It is dismissing the 10th amendment because the argument was also used for slavery. No one is thinking that states rights wasn't an argument used for slavery. But this is arguing vegetarianism is evil because hitler was.
      - toomuchtodo 1y ago
        I argue it isn’t absurdism when the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy, versus the actual collective and agreed upon belief of deferring to states rights and putting power closer to the governance of those states. Historically, it was slavery. Now it’s immigration, reproductive rights, etc. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It’s always about control exceeding genuine governance. Maybe that'll change, but until evidence and outcomes demonstrate otherwise, "the purpose of the system is what it does."
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        > the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy Can you provide an example of such evidence?
        toomuchtodo 1y ago
        Abortion primarily, but also the examples I enumerated upthread. https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/republicans-expose-their-hypocrisy-on-abortion/670562/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/repu... | https://archive.is/2022.07.18-235856/https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/republicans-expose-their-hypocrisy-on-abortion/670562/ https://archive.is/2022.07.18-235856/https://www.theatlantic...
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        Abortion is a bad example. Plenty of states protect reproductive rights. The issue was that it was not a law in the first place but rather court ruling.
  - 8note 1y ago
    with the setup of the US, i wouldnt consider that states rights are a thing - the union is only a set of things that the union government womt do. thats nothing to say that the states are allowed to do it
- simplify 1y ago
  Anything can be used for evil, doesn't mean that thing instantly becomes evil.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  [flagged]
- armchairhacker 1y ago
  Allowing states to regulate subscriptions is different than slavery. In particular, states shouldn’t have the right to restrict travel. If the slaves had free travel they would just leave for northern states. If people are able to leave to other states (even if it means rebuilding their life), plenty of bad state laws are OK because those affected will do so.
  - relaxing 1y ago
    The 14th amendment says no state shall deprive you of your life or liberty, not a minimum of one state, should you have have the funds and will to move there.
- AngryData 1y ago
  Could I not make the same argument against you for authoritarian central state rule bullshit? Maybe in some European countries it might actually work alright in their current political climates. But how can you look at the US right now and be like "Yes, we need more centralized and powerful government despite the federal government already wielding far more power than ever before or ever imagined in the past." We have literal centuries full of lessons on why strong authoritarian governments are trash and inevitably result in oppression, corruption, internal conflict, and war.
AStonesThrow 1y ago
[dead]
toomuchtodo 1y ago
Usually, it’s only “states rights” when conservatives want something. To be determined if this sticks as it rolls out to more states, or the federal government attempts to infringe on state authority. No different than the Missouri governor overriding voters and repealing voter-approved paid sick leave and minimum wage law, Ohio conservatives attempting to override voters on reproductive healthcare, Florida raising the bar for ballot initiatives, Texas gerrymandering efforts currently in progress, etc. “Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” -― David Frum https://www.google.com/search?q=hypocrisy+of+states+rights https://www.google.com/search?q=hypocrisy+of+states+rights
- babypuncher 1y ago
  Don't forget what happened in Utah last year. In 2018, voters passed the Better Boundaries ballot initiative, requiring our legislature to adopt non-gerrymandered congressional maps. In 2020, the legislature passed a law that effectively ignored the results of the initiative, and they drew even more gerrymandered maps after the census. We sued the state, and last summer our Supreme Court unanimously agreed that, per the state constitution, the legislature does not have the power to unilaterally gut laws passed by ballot initiative after the fact. So the legislature haphazardly put together their own ballot initiative that would have amended our constitution to give them the authority to ignore the results of ballot initiatives. This was put on our ballots, but our Supreme Court came through unanimously again, saying that the text of the initiative was grossly misleading and that they did not meet the constitutional requirement to notify the electorate far enough in advance of election day. This initiative was on our ballots as they had already been printed, but the results were not counted per the Supreme Court's order. My state government is still fighting tooth and nail to kill Better Boundaries before the 2026 election. None of these lawmakers give a single shit about the will of the people.
  - asdfasvea 1y ago
    Sinmilar thing happened in Missouri in the 90s, but without supreme court help. Voters put a law on the ballot, it passes, legislature passes another law cancelling it out. So now when the voters want something they no longer put a law on the ballot, they put a Missouri amendment on the ballot. Those can't just be overwritten by a legislature law, those must either be found unconstitutional or canceled out by another amendment. It's a fun game the voters of Missouri and their representatives have created for themselves.
__turbobrew__ 1y ago
> State's rights is just about always the best way to go Generally agreed. I live in Canada and think we would be much better off if we pushed more legislation away from the feds and to the provinces. The needs/wants of Alberta/Saskatchewan is much different than Quebec for example. Gun control is a major divisive issue in Canada as gun control is 100% at the federal level, but the preferences of how it is handles varies hugely between provinces, so much so that some provinces are threatening to not enforce the federal laws. Im fine with the feds managing border enforcement, immigration, and military — and collecting taxes to fund those programs — but other than that they should leave to the provinces. The other alternative is that everyone is subject to the mob rule of the major population centers which have much different needs/wants then those outside of the centers. Why not just give the population centers what they want and those in rural areas what they want?
- mook 1y ago
  Gun control is harder to do like that because guns are physical objects and it's trivial to bring them across unmanned borders. Something like subscriptions are much easier to deal with because that can just be based on billing address.
  - __turbobrew__ 1y ago
    It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC. Also consider that huge amounts of illegal guns cross the Canadian federal border, despite there being border control. Same thing with bear spray, illegal to carry in most cases but anyone over the age of 18 can get it because it has real legitimate uses.
    - sumeno 1y ago
      > It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC It works as well as having a peeing section in the pool
nkrisc 1y ago
That’s good and all for things that begin and end within a single state. Some things really should be done at the federal level. I don’t think a single service I subscribe to is based in the state in which I live.
- Spivak 1y ago
  Doesn't matter, you get click-to-cancel as long as you're in the state that has the law. Where they are based is irrelevant.
  - nkrisc 1y ago
    It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level. State and local laws should be addressing state and local issues. The pros and cons of a click-to-cancel law don't change from state to state.
    - throw10920 1y ago
      > It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level. You're missing an important reason why regulating at the state level first is a good idea: because it allows you to test the implementation with a small fraction of citizens before rolling it out. Yes, basically everyone wants click-to-cancel, but actually writing good regulation is hard. Ideally, what would happen is that a few states would try things in different ways, and then when they figure out the best implementation, the federal government would pick up that implementation.
      - nkrisc 1y ago
        That’s fair, that is a good point. But still in many cases I think a less-than-perfect law is better than none.
        throw10920 1y ago
dfxm12 1y ago
State's rights doesn't give power to the people. It gives power to mostly gerrymandered state legislatures and to appointed judges. Click to cancel is popular among the people. It was blocked despite this. If the people had power (as opposed to lobbyists, or big business), this would had passed federally.
- IncreasePosts 1y ago
  It was blocked because it was implemented illegally, not because people don't have power. How could this already be passed in CA? Does CA not have gerrymandering, appointed judges, and lobbyists?

xyst 1y ago

[flagged]

ecshafer 1y ago
States rights exist in the United States, regardless of if its been used for good or ill. The United States is a federation, and States Rights ARE a thing. States Rights are also used for professional licenses and insurance regulations, jumping to slavery is absurdism.
- toomuchtodo 1y ago
  > "Slavery and States' Rights" was a speech given by former Confederate States Army general Joseph Wheeler on July 31, 1894. The speech deals with the American Civil War and is considered to be a "Lost Cause" view of the war's causation. It is generally understood to argue that the United States (the Union) was to blame for the war, and downplays slavery as a cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_States%27_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_States%27_Rights https://web.archive.org/web/20180427082228/http://www.civilwarhome.com/wheelercauses.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20180427082228/http://www.civilw... https://news.wttw.com/2022/07/14/states-rights-supreme-court-and-history-discrimination https://news.wttw.com/2022/07/14/states-rights-supreme-court... This is simply history. Calling it absurdism indicates a lack of historical knowledge. https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
  - salawat 1y ago
    History is written by the victors, and the fight never ends. Yesterday's Lost Cause remains just that until current affairs once more brings forth the need for a rebirth of old ideas. Big fan of cannabis legalization? Hop on the State's Rights bus. Don't think that one size fits all? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think that just because a psychopath is sitting in the highest Federal office, that the rest of the U.S. is obligated to help him? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think the Feds should be able to universally obliterate women's sovereignty to their own body? Hopefully welcome to the State's Rights bus until such time as we can get something back in play on the Federal level. It's a disservice to associate a fundamental characteristic of our structure of government with one particularly egregiously unpopular use of it, or to wholesale dismiss it because it tends to be associated with things a lot of people find unpopular. That's rather the point. Arizona or New Mexico can tell off Nevada, who can tell off Utah, or Maryland that how they (Utah/Maryland) do things doesn't fly here. If you've never been a State hopper, it doesn't quite click, but once you've traveled the U.S. and lived in several different regions for long enough periods of time, it clicks. Not all States are the same, and that's okay.
  - ecshafer 1y ago
    It is absurdism. It is dismissing the 10th amendment because the argument was also used for slavery. No one is thinking that states rights wasn't an argument used for slavery. But this is arguing vegetarianism is evil because hitler was.
    - toomuchtodo 1y ago
      I argue it isn’t absurdism when the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy, versus the actual collective and agreed upon belief of deferring to states rights and putting power closer to the governance of those states. Historically, it was slavery. Now it’s immigration, reproductive rights, etc. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It’s always about control exceeding genuine governance. Maybe that'll change, but until evidence and outcomes demonstrate otherwise, "the purpose of the system is what it does."
      - reliabilityguy 1y ago
        > the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy Can you provide an example of such evidence?
        toomuchtodo 1y ago
        Abortion primarily, but also the examples I enumerated upthread. https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/republicans-expose-their-hypocrisy-on-abortion/670562/ https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/repu... | https://archive.is/2022.07.18-235856/https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/republicans-expose-their-hypocrisy-on-abortion/670562/ https://archive.is/2022.07.18-235856/https://www.theatlantic...
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        Abortion is a bad example. Plenty of states protect reproductive rights. The issue was that it was not a law in the first place but rather court ruling.
- 8note 1y ago
  with the setup of the US, i wouldnt consider that states rights are a thing - the union is only a set of things that the union government womt do. thats nothing to say that the states are allowed to do it
simplify 1y ago
Anything can be used for evil, doesn't mean that thing instantly becomes evil.
renewiltord 1y ago
[flagged]
armchairhacker 1y ago
Allowing states to regulate subscriptions is different than slavery. In particular, states shouldn’t have the right to restrict travel. If the slaves had free travel they would just leave for northern states. If people are able to leave to other states (even if it means rebuilding their life), plenty of bad state laws are OK because those affected will do so.
- relaxing 1y ago
  The 14th amendment says no state shall deprive you of your life or liberty, not a minimum of one state, should you have have the funds and will to move there.
AngryData 1y ago
Could I not make the same argument against you for authoritarian central state rule bullshit? Maybe in some European countries it might actually work alright in their current political climates. But how can you look at the US right now and be like "Yes, we need more centralized and powerful government despite the federal government already wielding far more power than ever before or ever imagined in the past." We have literal centuries full of lessons on why strong authoritarian governments are trash and inevitably result in oppression, corruption, internal conflict, and war.

AStonesThrow 1y ago

[dead]

toomuchtodo 1y ago

Usually, it’s only “states rights” when conservatives want something. To be determined if this sticks as it rolls out to more states, or the federal government attempts to infringe on state authority. No different than the Missouri governor overriding voters and repealing voter-approved paid sick leave and minimum wage law, Ohio conservatives attempting to override voters on reproductive healthcare, Florida raising the bar for ballot initiatives, Texas gerrymandering efforts currently in progress, etc. “Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.” -― David Frum https://www.google.com/search?q=hypocrisy+of+states+rights https://www.google.com/search?q=hypocrisy+of+states+rights

babypuncher 1y ago
Don't forget what happened in Utah last year. In 2018, voters passed the Better Boundaries ballot initiative, requiring our legislature to adopt non-gerrymandered congressional maps. In 2020, the legislature passed a law that effectively ignored the results of the initiative, and they drew even more gerrymandered maps after the census. We sued the state, and last summer our Supreme Court unanimously agreed that, per the state constitution, the legislature does not have the power to unilaterally gut laws passed by ballot initiative after the fact. So the legislature haphazardly put together their own ballot initiative that would have amended our constitution to give them the authority to ignore the results of ballot initiatives. This was put on our ballots, but our Supreme Court came through unanimously again, saying that the text of the initiative was grossly misleading and that they did not meet the constitutional requirement to notify the electorate far enough in advance of election day. This initiative was on our ballots as they had already been printed, but the results were not counted per the Supreme Court's order. My state government is still fighting tooth and nail to kill Better Boundaries before the 2026 election. None of these lawmakers give a single shit about the will of the people.
- asdfasvea 1y ago
  Sinmilar thing happened in Missouri in the 90s, but without supreme court help. Voters put a law on the ballot, it passes, legislature passes another law cancelling it out. So now when the voters want something they no longer put a law on the ballot, they put a Missouri amendment on the ballot. Those can't just be overwritten by a legislature law, those must either be found unconstitutional or canceled out by another amendment. It's a fun game the voters of Missouri and their representatives have created for themselves.

__turbobrew__ 1y ago

> State's rights is just about always the best way to go Generally agreed. I live in Canada and think we would be much better off if we pushed more legislation away from the feds and to the provinces. The needs/wants of Alberta/Saskatchewan is much different than Quebec for example. Gun control is a major divisive issue in Canada as gun control is 100% at the federal level, but the preferences of how it is handles varies hugely between provinces, so much so that some provinces are threatening to not enforce the federal laws. Im fine with the feds managing border enforcement, immigration, and military — and collecting taxes to fund those programs — but other than that they should leave to the provinces. The other alternative is that everyone is subject to the mob rule of the major population centers which have much different needs/wants then those outside of the centers. Why not just give the population centers what they want and those in rural areas what they want?

mook 1y ago
Gun control is harder to do like that because guns are physical objects and it's trivial to bring them across unmanned borders. Something like subscriptions are much easier to deal with because that can just be based on billing address.
- __turbobrew__ 1y ago
  It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC. Also consider that huge amounts of illegal guns cross the Canadian federal border, despite there being border control. Same thing with bear spray, illegal to carry in most cases but anyone over the age of 18 can get it because it has real legitimate uses.
  - sumeno 1y ago
    > It seems to work fine in the USA? Lots of guns illegal in California are legal elsewhere? There are also lots of municipalities that ban guns like NYC It works as well as having a peeing section in the pool

nkrisc 1y ago

That’s good and all for things that begin and end within a single state. Some things really should be done at the federal level. I don’t think a single service I subscribe to is based in the state in which I live.

Spivak 1y ago
Doesn't matter, you get click-to-cancel as long as you're in the state that has the law. Where they are based is irrelevant.
- nkrisc 1y ago
  It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level. State and local laws should be addressing state and local issues. The pros and cons of a click-to-cancel law don't change from state to state.
  - throw10920 1y ago
    > It's absurd that such laws would need to be passed 50 times for all US citizens to benefit from it. It should be done at the federal level. You're missing an important reason why regulating at the state level first is a good idea: because it allows you to test the implementation with a small fraction of citizens before rolling it out. Yes, basically everyone wants click-to-cancel, but actually writing good regulation is hard. Ideally, what would happen is that a few states would try things in different ways, and then when they figure out the best implementation, the federal government would pick up that implementation.
    - nkrisc 1y ago
      That’s fair, that is a good point. But still in many cases I think a less-than-perfect law is better than none.
      - throw10920 1y ago

dfxm12 1y ago

State's rights doesn't give power to the people. It gives power to mostly gerrymandered state legislatures and to appointed judges. Click to cancel is popular among the people. It was blocked despite this. If the people had power (as opposed to lobbyists, or big business), this would had passed federally.

IncreasePosts 1y ago
It was blocked because it was implemented illegally, not because people don't have power. How could this already be passed in CA? Does CA not have gerrymandering, appointed judges, and lobbyists?