An Inkling of the Dangers
If you have the time, please give this post a read over at Andrew Sullivan's blog. He was kind enough to post my review of his book and offer some of his thoughts in response. In all humility, I present you with my own "money quote" from my review:
At what point do individual rights, as protected at the federal level, expand to the extent that state governments are non-entities? Apply these same principles to the economic sphere and you have an inkling of the dangers presented: once something is a federal right, local self-determination is gone. At what point does the federal government shoulder such a burden of protecting rights, so conceived, that limited government becomes unworkable?
The gist of his opinion is as follows:
Would a conservative of doubt be able to endorse "morals legislation" at a local level? I think so - as long as the laws were reasonably congruent with a reasonable social objective. And the judgment of the reasonableness of such a congruence will vary from state to state and from time to time. What might seem eminently reasonable to one generation may not to the next one. The conservative of doubt will carefully navigate these changing social and cultural waters.As they say - read the whole thing!
Update: Sullivan has now posted a response to my review, wherein another reader says I am deserving of a "bitchslap." That can found here.
In that response, the reader raises the following point: the introduction of the 14th Amendment changed the game. So noted. I agree the 14th did extend the protection of basic civil rights to all citizens. But it does not follow, therefore, that the federal government and the state government have identical functions or powers.
Are the two levels of government concentric about the citizen? Yes. But is their circumference about him the same? No. So to make absolutely every possible action of a citizen into an established federal (emphasis on federal) right will wreck the system of balances. This was simply not the purpose of the 14th amendment! To assert, as the reader does, that my view can be ascribed to mere 'prejudice,' directed at 'private, consensual behavior,' is disingenuous. While my view certainly covers morals legislation, it also could be expanded to include economic activity as well. Should citizens have the right to the same economic and taxation climate in each state? What if "well-being" is defined as right? What then for the scope of federal power? To raise these questions and their implications for limited government is no mere prejudice. It's common sense.
posted by Joshua @ 9:40 AM
1 Comments:
Now... I'm not a conservative, much lass a doubtful one, but I loved your critique (and the subsequent reader resonse) though I don't necessarily agree with either.
Now, I'm not sure, but I've been led to believe that you've spent most of your life in New Hampshire, a very small state, surrounded by other small states, and rather more homogenous than most other states in the Union. On the other hand, I've spent most of my life in Texas and New York, which lends me a different perspective on the matter.
The first is a matter of statewide diversity. Texas and New York are, with California and Florida, two of the most diverse states in the nation, per capita. The races, religions, and political opinions of these four states are as wildly varied as their geography. Texas may seem like the reddest of red states when you think of the flat heat of Houston, but becomes a deep royal blue in the hill-country of liberated Austin. California seems like tha wacky left-end of the country on the Beaches of L.A., but tavel an hour directly east, and you'll find yourself with the red-blooded Republicans of the snowy San Bernadino Mountains. In New York, Orange County of the American Chopper fame borders Westchester County of the Clinton family. And if Miami and Tallahassee have anything in common, it's a postal code.
Any of these states could be a thriving, prosperous country of it's own if not for the fact that they chose to be part of the United States of America. Which is not to say that New Hampshire couldn't be, but the taxes would sure as hell be a lot higher, at the very least, and for little gain. We're better as one nation, a unity of states, but this brings me to my second point: you could, if you so desired, continue to work in New Hampshire, and yet live in Vermont, Maine, Massachusettes, or even Canada if it so suited you. The commute might be longer, but not prohibitively so, and you could live where you felt your rights and values were best represented. In Texas, on the other hand, most counties are larger than your entire state. If you can find livelihood for your family in Lubbock, you don't have a lot of choice, and have almost no voice in your state government (which in this case is far more brazenly corrupt than the federal one.) Now, In New York, one has much the same luck as you, where one could, if need be, live in NJ, CT, PA, VT, MA, or Canada, deending on their placement, so we have our choices. California and Florida residents don't have those kind of options, however.
Without wanting to strawman you, it seems like what your offering is a situation wherein the individual states can be less free than the country as a whole, but that makes tha country as a whole less free.
I agree that localities should be and must be allowed to have greater control over what is allowed in their communities, but shouldn't this control be as local as possible? Which possible statewide reform do you have in mind for New Hampshire that wouldn't be better decided individually by Manchester, Nashua, and so on? You're fortunate enough (in this case) to live in a state that can perform as one active community, but that fact doesn't make it a good idea for states like Texas and California, that then can be made less free by rulers that might as well be federal, and in my opinion, Federal rulers should be in charge of maintyaining our National liberties.
Post a Comment
<< Home