States' Rights

[The Wrath]

Mod's note: Split from another thread. - sN

That's the essence of the states-rights position which is a centerpiece of conservatism. If the individual states actualy only had laws that protected rights rather than violating them, that wouldn't be such a bad position. If pigs had wings, it wouldn't be such a bad position to say that they can fly.

I know I'm a bit late, but I was actually converted to a more "states rights" mentality, than I had previously held, by something that GreedyCapitalist said. When arguing about the circumstances under which states should be allowed to secede, he said that any geographical area should be allowed to secede, but that all inhabitants should have the option of leaving first. And if the state in question doesn't want to let them leave, then the federal government should employ the military to force that state to let them leave. I disagreed at first, but after pondering it for a number of months, I decided that I agree.

Somewhere in that conversation (I don't even remember the thread), the argument was made that it's better to let the states have the power to violate rights, than it is to let the federal government tell the states what to do. Why? Because the states have much more limited jurisdiction. People can always leave the state if they don't want their rights violated. But giving the federal government the power to control the states leads to a potentially much larger problem. In short, if someone is going to have the power to violate my rights, I'd rather it be the states than the feds, because the feds are tougher to escape.

I haven't worked out how I think this applies to Lawrence v. Texas or Roe v. Wade, but I lean towards thinking that there were clear violations of Constitutional rights in those cases, making it appropriate for SCOTUS to step in. I'd have to look more closely at them to make up my mind for sure.

Edited April 17, 2007 by softwareNerd
Thread split

[aleph_0]

I vaguely recall Ayn Rand talking about this kind of Republican experimentalism (since most people proposing this think it would be good for each state to experiment with different politics), saying that it's disgusting because it forgets that the experiments involve human lives.

Personally, I say get it right at the federal level. All human beings have the same rights.

[softwareNerd]

I understand this part: you'd rather a state be violating rights than a country, because at least you can move to another state. Similarly, I figure you'd rather a county violate your rights than a state.

From this, how does it follow that states ought to be allowed to violate your rights?

[The Wrath]

But if the federal government has the power to go the states and say "you will respect these rights," then it also has the right to go the people and say "you will obey us."

[softwareNerd]

However, instead of promoting states rights, isn't it better to promote individual rights? Similarly, instead of supporting a judge, or a party, or a politician who is for states rights, isn't is better to support one who is for individual rights? Some people -- politicians or otherwise -- might be using "states rights" as a mechanism to allow their state to roll-back a violation of individual rights, others might be using that banner as a way to get their state to violate individual rights. I can understand aligning oneself with the first group, but not with the latter...and even then, on the basis of individual rights.

[Seeker]

Well naturally, "states rights" is misnomer and oxymoron, since it's really referring to federalism, and since states don't have rights. With that cleared up, we can ask what is the justification for federalism? On this I agree that it's main feature in support of individual rights is that it allows people to leave one state and go to another that better secures individual rights. It's not a primary, however, any more than separation-of-powers is a primary or democracy is a primary. These are means to the end of securing individual rights suitable for systems of government in which men are not perfect and must have their capacity to oppress limited in various ways. On that score, federalism is one important tool in the toolbox and we ought to support it.

[Korthor]

I think this “state rights” debate supports my original position, which is that leftist interpreters of the Constitution are superior to rightist ones (e.g., strict constructionists).

Where are the conservative state experiments that support individual rights? As far as I can tell, the conservative state initiatives focus on things like restricting abortion and gay rights, hardly consistent with Objectivist positions. Are there states out there fighting for capitalism?

On the other hand, there are states fighting for leftist individual rights issues like medical marijuana and legalized euthanasia. The irony is that strict constructionism would suggest a straight-forward “supremacy clause” reading that would crush those initiatives.

Go leftist judges!

[Seeker]

On the other hand, there are states fighting for leftist individual rights issues like medical marijuana and legalized euthanasia. The irony is that strict constructionism would suggest a straight-forward “supremacy clause” reading that would crush those initiatives.

Sure, unless they also do something about the bastardized leftist New Deal commerce clause jurisprudence that says that the power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to regulate whatever "affects" interstate commerce (and I guess, whatever affects whatever affects interstate commerce, etc.). Would originalism do something to cure that constitutional monstrosity? In principle it probably should, although I haven't studied the issue.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Seeker

[DavidOdden]

People can always leave the state if they don't want their rights violated.

The foundation for your new-found religion seems to be that it's okay to violate people's rights as long as there seems to be another place that they can pack up and leave for. You can always give the thief your wallet if you don't want your rights violated (in the form of being knifed). Anything moral action that one state can outlaw, all states can outlaw, and furthermore can hide under the veil of "state's rights" to escape constitutional protection. It may be harder to escape federal jurisdiction, but it is easier for a state to create rights-violating atrocities in the first place.

[The Wrath]

The foundation for your new-found religion seems to be that it's okay to violate people's rights as long as there seems to be another place that they can pack up and leave for. You can always give the thief your wallet if you don't want your rights violated (in the form of being knifed). Anything moral action that one state can outlaw, all states can outlaw, and furthermore can hide under the veil of "state's rights" to escape constitutional protection. It may be harder to escape federal jurisdiction, but it is easier for a state to create rights-violating atrocities in the first place.

Uh...what basis do you have for calling my view on this matter a religion?

I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't think states should be able to do whatever they want. I absolutely think that the Constitution forbids them from doing many things, and that the federal government should step in in many cases. But if the choice is between giving that kind of power to the states or the federal govt., I'd much rather it go to the states.

However, instead of promoting states rights, isn't it better to promote individual rights? Similarly, instead of supporting a judge, or a party, or a politician who is for states rights, isn't is better to support one who is for individual rights? Some people -- politicians or otherwise -- might be using "states rights" as a mechanism to allow their state to roll-back a violation of individual rights, others might be using that banner as a way to get their state to violate individual rights. I can understand aligning oneself with the first group, but not with the latter...and even then, on the basis of individual rights.

I would never ally myself with people who want to use states rights as a means of violating individual rights. But I think it is better for these battles to take place on the state level.

[softwareNerd]

I would never ally myself with people who want to use states rights as a means of violating individual rights. But I think it is better for these battles to take place on the state level.

Yes, but... I'm not clear if you're making this as a theoretical argument, or an example of a choice people really face somewhere in the US.

For instance, ...

• if some person is making an intellectual case for states-rights, without any immediate plans for any specific action, then the appropriate intellectual response is to make the case for individual rights instead;
  
• if a person is making the case for states rights because they want their state to allow something that ought to be allowed, but has been denied by the Feds, then one can support them without supporting "states rights";
  
• if someone is making a case for states rights because they want their state to roll back some individual rights currently honored by the Feds, then one would not support them (at least not on that topic, nor on states rights)
  
• if a person is making a case for states rights with the implication for some action, but it is unclear what, then it would be a gamble to support them, and one would be better off making a case for individual rights
  

So, I'm not clear in what situation one would rationally support a states-rights position.

[The Wrath]

Yes, but... I'm not clear if you're making this as a theoretical argument, or an example of a choice people really face somewhere in the US.

For instance, ...

• if some person is making an intellectual case for states-rights, without any immediate plans for any specific action, then the appropriate intellectual response is to make the case for individual rights instead;
  
• if a person is making the case for states rights because they want their state to allow something that ought to be allowed, but has been denied by the Feds, then one can support them without supporting "states rights";
  
• if someone is making a case for states rights because they want their state to roll back some individual rights currently honored by the Feds, then one would not support them (at least not on that topic, nor on states rights)
  
• if a person is making a case for states rights with the implication for some action, but it is unclear what, then it would be a gamble to support them, and one would be better off making a case for individual rights
  

So, I'm not clear in what situation one would rationally support a states-rights position.

I support it from the perspective of the most optimal structure of the government, rather than with respect to any particular issue. This is the same thing as secession. David argued, and I now agree, that states should be allowed to secede for any reason, provided that they give people the option of leaving. Within the limits of the Constitution, I think states should be allowed to make their own laws.

[softwareNerd]

I can understand some special significance for U.S. states, based on the history of how the country was formed. However, from a political viewpoint, states have no rights. If smaller is better, then perhaps my sub-division could secede from the U.S., giving me the "right" to leave! Do you have an argument to support your view?

[The Wrath]

I recognize that the term "rights" doesn't apply to states, but I don't know of another term that fit.

And I still think you're missing my point...there is nothing inherently better about government at a smaller scale. Rather government, at smaller scales, is easier to control and/or escape from.

As for your subdivision...well, I think there should be a limit as to how small an area can secede.

[softwareNerd]

I agree that if the a mafia takes over an area of town, it's better than if they were to take over the entire state or country. Even so, that does not imply one should be for smaller mafia in principle, if that merely means small mafia everywhere. Often, smaller mafia can be just as oppressive as larger ones and going from the control of one to the control of another is of little value. Further, your initial post on states-rights suggests that it is fine and moral for a mafia to do so as long as they're supported by a majority and as long as they let non-supporters move.

European countries are much smaller than the U.S. Now, the EU allows a lot of movement from one country to the other. Does this raise the hope that Europe will become more free?

Size should not be the key issue in secession. Would Galt's Gulch be considered too tiny?

The key issue is whether the seceding entity will respect individual rights less than or more than the entity from which it secedes. States do not have any right to secede unless it is considered in context of the reason for such secession. The legitimacy of such secession flows from their new, planned form of government.

[The Wrath]

I agree that if the a mafia takes over an area of town, it's better than if they were to take over the entire state or country. Even so, that does not imply one should be for smaller mafia in principle, if that merely means small mafia everywhere. Often, smaller mafia can be just as oppressive as larger ones and going from the control of one to the control of another is of little value. Further, your initial post on states-rights suggests that it is fine and moral for a mafia to do so as long as they're supported by a majority and as long as they let non-supporters move.

European countries are much smaller than the U.S. Now, the EU allows a lot of movement from one country to the other. Does this raise the hope that Europe will become more free?

Size should not be the key issue in secession. Would Galt's Gulch be considered too tiny?

The key issue is whether the seceding entity will respect individual rights less than or more than the entity from which it secedes. States do not have any right to secede unless it is considered in context of the reason for such secession. The legitimacy of such secession flows from their new, planned form of government.

The problem with this is that, if the federal government becomes overtly oppressive, it will not allow states to secede for legitimate reasons. Imagine that, in 2008, the American Nazi party won a resounding electoral success and took over the federal government, and then Texas wanted to secede and form a government based on the founding principles of the United States. Do you think the new Nazi government would allow it to happen, no matter how legitimate its reasons?

[Seeker]

I recognize that the term "rights" doesn't apply to states, but I don't know of another term that fit.

Would this help?

[The Wrath]

I know what federalism is, but that doesn't really provide a suitable replacement for the term "states rights."

[DavidOdden]

Uh...what basis do you have for calling my view on this matter a religion?

Wull, you said

I know I'm a bit late, but I was actually converted to a more "states rights" mentality

I don't think states should be able to do whatever they want. I absolutely think that the Constitution forbids them from doing many things, and that the federal government should step in in many cases.

Then in what way are you in support of a states rights mentality? If you don't claim that the state rather than the federal government that has a right to violate people's rights, then I don't see a connection to states rights.

But if the choice is between giving that kind of power to the states or the federal govt., I'd much rather it go to the states.

This despite the fact that that will lead to huge increases in violation of individual rights. That would be a states rights position, I'll grant you.

[Drew1776]

And I still think you're missing my point...there is nothing inherently better about government at a smaller scale. Rather government, at smaller scales, is easier to control and/or escape from.

I think you bring up a very good point here. Objectivist's believe that you have to change people’s philosophy before you change politics. I personally think people are too stupid to "get it" without a bloody revolution. Anyway assuming that you must change the average joes philosophy it is much easier to do on a smaller scale than a larger scale. I may personally be able to raise awareness on a certain issue with my neighbors or my town or maybe even my state! How the hell am I going to convince some welfare mom in NYC that she should give up her welfare check and fight for lower (or no taxes).

In principle, a small gang [state] can do just as much damage as a big gang [the feds]. But at least, as you have aptly pointed out Moose, a small gang is easier to control. I have a much greater chance of enlightening ~8,683,242 than ~296,410,404. So it seems pretty obvious, that the smaller the better.

As an aside, the only reason why I would strengthen the federal government is so when I become supreme dictator it will be much easier to control the entire populous.

[y_feldblum]

The problem with this is that, if the federal government becomes overtly oppressive, it will not allow states to secede for legitimate reasons. Imagine that, in 2008, the American Nazi party won a resounding electoral success and took over the federal government, and then Texas wanted to secede and form a government based on the founding principles of the United States. Do you think the new Nazi government would allow it to happen, no matter how legitimate its reasons?

The Nazi government would disallow secession, whether or not the Constitution comes with a secession clause.

[Seeker]

If you don't claim that the state rather than the federal government that has a right to violate people's rights, then I don't see a connection to states rights.

If by "states rights" we're simply discussing the distribution of governmental powers between state and federal along the lines envisioned by the Tenth Amendment, then the issue isn't a right to violate people's rights per se but rather dividing the potential for abuse -- the issue is not of "rights" but of possible wrongs. In this context, to say that "it's better to let the states have the power to violate rights" is nothing more than asserting the value of such a division of power. I don't think anyone was asserting that states ought to have a "right" to violate rights. Rather, federalism would require that some rights be secured in state constitutions and laws rather than the federal constitution.

Such a division would not be the cause of such rights violations as might occur any more than leaving an individual to be free to fail would be the cause of his failure. The proximate cause would not be federalism, but the failure of the people with a given state to properly secure their own rights. It is important, when the people fail, to blame the people, not the system of government that reflects their mistake. Federalism cannot be the cause of rights violations any more than can bicameralism, separation-of-powers, the Electoral College, or any of the other myriad tools designed in a complementary fashion to constrain abuse and preserve individual liberty.

Secession is another subject altogether -- the citizens of the United States in a given territory can no more properly leave the United States than citizens of a town or street could secede from the state in which they live and become their own "government". That would be chaos and contrary to the need for government to have a monopoly on force within its jurisdiction.