On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:20 PM, michael perelman < [email protected]> wrote:
> I am continually amazed by the rhetorical use of principle and > probability. States' rights are a perfect example. To begin with, this > concept first evolved as a tactic to protect the rights of slave owners, > hardly a noble objective. Since then, it has become almost synonymous with > freedom. States should have the right to determine who can and cannot get > married. The federal government has no business sticking its nose into > such matters. On the other hand, states' right to legislate on marijuana > use is routinely overruled. Similarly, states' right to control business > abuses, such as the spreading of pollution, are routinely overruled by > Congress, including strong upholders of states' rights. > I find the "states rights" concept to be especially bizarre. Quite apart from the arbitrary ways in which it is used in practice (as you pointed out above), it is hard to make any any sense of the concept in ideological or philosophical terms. I mean I can understand the appeal of the concept of "local government" to someone with libertarian or individualistic inclinations. But "states righters" care nothing about local government (e.g. with public school boards). In other words, states righters are just fine with concentration of power in state capitals; they only oppose the concentration of power in the Federal government. How does that make any sense at all except as a historical euphemism for white supremacy? -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
