Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Well what do you call these folks who scream for states rights so that the states can then impose regulations on their residents which the fed govt could not impose or was reluctant to impose? Isn't that talking out of both sides of your mouth? I mean, if you're for states' rights on the grounds that the fed govt should not be interfering in people's lives, but you favor the state interefering in people's lives, how can you say you're for liberating people from the heavy hand of govt? How can you be against big govt at the fed level, yet in favor of it at the state level? Isn't that pointless? Aren't you just changing who's doing the interfering?
It appears to me that a lot of the states' rights people don't really want less intrusion, they're really arguing "I don't like the fed govt and I want to be regulated by the state instead". That's a valid sentiment, but these people should stop defining their aim as "liberating" people when what they really want is greater regulation of people's liberties at the state level.
|
I don't disagree with you, but it's on the other side as well. Those that want everyone to have basically unlimited social freedoms do not want all to have commensurate economic freedoms. That is what I meant by saying that your definition doesn't adequately describe people accross all issues.
