As it stands now the government of the States are subordinate to the central government that they set up when they all agreed to abide by the Constitution written when this nation was founded. We know this from the fact that the laws and Constitutions of the States are subject to scrutiny from the U.S. Constitution.
This is to determine whether or not the laws of the States or the Constitutions of the State are perceived to be in conflict to the U.S. Constitution. If this conflict exists as argued then it is the State that must repeal that law or section of their Constitution.
This conflict will always be seen in the area of domestic affairs. This would result in the need of equal treatment of all individuals in the nation, each State being subject to a single solution to any and all issues. In this system alien and citizens are subject to the same rules of law thus all benefit.
Now, if the federal government was subordinate unto the States there would be no need for them to repeal. The seemingly conflict would remain but the State law would be the determinate law to be enforced in that particular State. This would allow each State to determine for itself how to deal with any domestic issue without federal government interference.
This would result in unequal treatment of individuals in the nation but the need of equal treatment of individuals in each State. This introduces the concept of choice for solutions. In order for this concept to work the need of tolerance of all the States as well as of the U.S. Government must be exhibited by all.
It would also require that respect be exhibited for the right of the States to make these choices. And this must apply even if some might disagree to the point of intolerance with the choices of others. In this system citizens would be the beneficiaries of the law.
Both ideas presented here would still be consistent with the ideology of both sides as to the intent of the founders of this nation. The primary difference being how the individual person seeks to be treated by his government.
By the first concept he knows he should be treated the same as everyone else in the nation. And with this the concept of borders within the nation ceases to exist in time. This would eliminate the idea of the immigration and emigration and all that the words imply.
By the second concept a person will need to choose how he is to be treated by his government because he knows that the laws of each State may and probably will treat him differently. And for this he must have the right to emigrate and immigrate as he chooses within the States.
Government of the people by the first concept, if we are to believe history, must always lead to a dictatorship of a people. The reason being is that a majority of persons will become united under a single belief and that belief will be dictated by the government and forced upon the minority of persons in regards to issues. This is because laws do have a moral effect upon the psyche of the individual. This concept has been declared by the science of Psychology. We can see that effect in today's society as well as in history.
Government by the second conception, if we are to believe history, can never fulfill its promise of the concept of choices. That is because some issues only allow two choices. And one choice will always be seen as an intolerable choice. And when this occurs one side will impose their views on the other side with the use of force if necessary. Once this occurs power becomes centralized thus the power structure becomes inverted. This seems to be an inevitability when man rules over himself.
Tolerance of ideas and ways, it seems, has a short time span and is very impatient in man. Self righteousness seems to be the dominant rule of men and seeks to impose that rule on all. Ideas, it seems, are only tolerated when those ideas allow for many choices but become intolerable when allowed but two choices. I guess the morality within each of us demands this of ourselves and of others.
Right and wrong seems to be the dominant idea and every other idea must subordinate itself to this moral concept which results in being very judgmental. This is opposed by the concept of positive and negative which would be less judgmental about things and people.
Liberty and equality seems to be incompatible with each other. In the seeking of the one we must sacrifice the other. In the seeking of liberty we must slowly accept, voluntarily and consensually, the burden of self responsibility. In the seeking of equality we must slowly place, by force, the burden of responsibility on others.
25 comments:
Mr. Griper, my friend it has been a few days since we once touched on these issues. Much like you, other activities have keep me from this cyber schooling.
I have always enjoyed these sessions of historical thought. And will be doing the double two step to get up to pace, if welcomed into.
I hope health and time has been kind to you and yours.
From within the borders of the Republic of Tejas- sharky
Thinking to comment in general terms, I 'googled'
variations in state laws:
7,850,000!
I tend to think of Law as
a listing of 'shall not' so
admit to bias in my perception. So, sticking to simple observation of
my state, we note that property taxes are higher than neighboring state A;
people actually leave our state for that state for that reason. Welfare benefits likewise. My state has relatively low
corporate tax and environmental policy, so
people leave other states to come here. The term
'Californicator' applies to many who sold homes at inflated value in Cal to
come to my state cash heavy and purchase far better homes at lower prices. Obviously differing state policy..
I am not sure the reasons, but my state sees many leave for Alaska. We know that there is considerable
interstate movement, Griper from Michican,
BB from Wisconsin..for a number of reasons, but at
least some of the reasons
may include 'variation in
state law' (admittedly most
people move for opportunity which has nothing to do with law)
So I agree that 'domestic
policy' is a state domain and have argued previously that when state policy overides the rights of an individual, national intervention has taken place. 'Liberty and equality' may be incompatible for some, not all. Total liberty, for example means total anarchy...which, while perhaps attainable in small
areas, simply cannot sustain in a large population. Total equality
has not and perhaps never can exist for there are any number of reasons why
as we might paraphrase
Orwell 'some people are more equal than others'-
health, luck, family,
ambition, intelligence,
personality, gender, ability, education etc.
vary in any population.
That cannot be changed, it can be addressed in varying degrees. You note
that 'liberty and equality
seem to be incompatible with each other', which is much akin to the 19th century fixation with
'Social Darwinsim', and
one might suspect a societal problem. We posit that government on any level has been a response to organising a society,
that that society may compete with other societies and avoid the
anarchy, 'rule of the jungle' if you will.
Probably why the human race has multiplied to some
6.6 Billion, while the tiger is on the brink of
extinction.
I would explore the 7,850,000 variations in state law, but I ran over my own mailbox yesterday and have to go fix it. :)
LS,
you're always welcome to take part here. i hope you enjoy this series of posts. it started out with the intent of being a single post but through the inspiration of BB and lista it has become this 5 part series.
so, read and enjoy and paricipate and i hope that it might enrich your own ideas as it has mine.
BB,
"I tend to think of Law as
a listing of 'shall not' so
admit to bias in my perception"
there i agree totally. it is when it comes to a listing of "shall do"
that troubles me.
"that when state policy overides the rights of an individual, national intervention has taken place."
i won't disagree with that. but remember the Constitution divides rights into 3 domains. the federal government, the state governments and individuals. and none should encroach upon the rights of any. and no shifting of rights should take place without first passing an amendment to the Constitution authorizing that shift.
and as this post describes. by the first, each person of the nation would enjoy the same rights.
by the second, only each citizen of a state would enjoy the rights as recognized in the state constitutions.
and in regards to individual rights, remember the greater number of rights the individual person possesses the closer he comes to a state of anarchy and inequality.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
wow yee, now it has gotten thru this thick head of mine, BB. talk about a revelation of thought. i think, my friend you have finally did it. man oh man oh man.
i think i finally see the pieces that was missing about your ideology. and i feel embarrassed because they were out in the open the whole time.
Congratulations and thank you oh so very much.
I'm Obviously not Keeping up with the Class. lol. I'm Still on the Previous Post.
"ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
....I sense I'm getting blamed for something. :)
yep, BB, you sure are. lol
you're getting blamed for corrupting my whole line of thoughts in regards to liberal ideology.
and that is being a very bad boy. lol
from what i understand from your explanation is that the liberals have added a whole new tier to the "pyramid of power".
and with this new tier it reconciles every liberal contradiction that i saw in my mind.
Hi Griper,
You Know, I was Following you Right up Until the Third Paragraph in which I saw Black and White, All or Nothing, Thinking. That is that if the US Controls anything at all, then it has to Control Everything. This Idea is Reflected in the Statement that...
"each State being subject to a single solution to any and all issues."
Naturally, the Problem in the Statement is the Words "Any and ALL". I Actually get Tired at Times, Griper, of Correcting you Over and Over again when you Use Absolutes like this and I Fail to see why the Equal Treatment Clause would Apply to Aliens, or Illegal Immigrants. That isn't Right.
Also, as I said in a Comment on the Next Post Down, if the States were not Subordinate to the US, then the Constitution would be Void and Useless and there would be no United States, Only States.
This is my Response to Your First 4 Paragraphs, about a Third of your Post. That's Enough for now. I'll Finish Later.
Also, as I said in a Comment on the Next Post Down, if the States were not Subordinate to the US, then the Constitution would be Void and Useless and there would be no United States, Only States.
false, lista. even Geo. Washington recognized that State laws took priority over the U.S. Constitution. and there could never be a thing called a free state prior to the Civil war if what you say is true.
Ok, then Explain it to me. What is the Purpose of the Constitution if it is to have no Authority Over the States? It's Like a Treaty and you can Not Enter into a Treaty without Forfeiting Something.
Let's see. How was it that I said it? In a Comment in the Next Post Down, Griper, I said that...
"to Enter into a Treaty is to Forfeit a Portion of Ones Sovereignty. That is the Freedom to Break and go Against that which is in the Treaty. Treaties are Often Necessary in Order to Keep the Peace and yet Treaties Hinder Freedom, just as Laws are Necessary in Order to Keep the Peace in a Society and yet Laws Hinder Freedom.
"In Short, Total and Complete Sovereignty, Liberty and Freedom doesn't Ever Really Occur and is not Even Desirable because the Result is Anarchy.
"So yes, there were and are no TOTALLY Free States, due to the Fact that the US Constitution Supersedes the Constitutions of the States, yet that's just how it is.
"If the State Constitutions Superseded the US Constitution, then there would be no Treaty and the US Constitution would be Useless, now wouldn't it?"
Notice how I Said "Totally". I am Arguing against an Absolute and in doing so, saying that Freedom and Restraints Come in Degrees.
In the Series of Three Comments that I Wrote Earlier today on the Previous Post, that is the Next One Down. I Developed these Thoughts a Little Better. I Also Remember as I was Writing it, Thinking that some of it Might Make a Good Post on my Blog. We'll see.
Constitutions limit the power of the government that it addresses, lista. that is true of any Constitution, whether it be written or oral.
The U.S. Constitution limits the power of the U.S. government.
"free States" as defined has nothing to do with how you were thinking.
as defined the phrase refers to those States that banished the institution of slavery within their respective borders prior to the Civil war.
Ok, Constitutions Limit Power and in doing so, they also Limit Rights, or another way of Putting it, they also Limit Liberty, Freedom, Sovereignty, Etc. You Pick the Word you most Like, yet all of these things are True. The Constitutions Limit the Power, Rights, Sovereignty, Liberty and Freedoms of the Federal Government.
There are also Limits, though, on the Power, Rights, Sovereignty, Liberty and Freedoms of the States. The Treaty goes both Ways and since the Whole Thing was set up in Order to "Balance", the Powers, that means that there were Limits on all of the Powers, so that they could Keep Each Other in Check. So it is Really More of a Partnership then a Dictatorship.
If we are to Define the Phrase "Free State" According to a Particular Time in History, then it could be Defined as you say, yet if we are to Apply it to Today, it could Mean Free to Decide about the Abortion Issue, or Free to Decide on some of the things that BB Mentioned in one of his Above Comments.
Yes, I've Read the Comments already, so I'm doing a little better than I did on the Last Post.
While I'm Speaking of the Above Comments, I'd Like to Point Out how BB said that "Total liberty, for example means Total anarchy"
And then Later you, yourself said "the greater number of Rights the individual person possesses, the closer he comes to a state of anarchy and inequality."
Both of these Statements Indicate that Liberty and Rights Need to be Limited in Order to Avoid Anarchy and therefore Liberty and Rights can not be TOTAL. That's all that I'm Saying. So what is the Big Deal if just as Individuals can not be TOTALLY Free, so also States are not TOTALLY Free. I am Arguing Against an Absolute. That's all, so Please don't Read more into it than what's there.
The Comments that I have Written and Saved in my Word Processor while Reading the Above Post and Comments has been Divided into Three Parts. For Now, I'm just Going to Post Part One.
One other thing to Consider in Relation to States Rights is that not Everyone has the Financial Means to Move and this Causes the Poor to Be Stuck where they were Born and Raised.
Another Problem is that when People are Dissatisfied with the Decisions in their State and either Can Not or do not Desire to Move, they have a Tendency to Go Over the Heads of their Leaders, to the Higher Authority, which is the Federal Government. The Only way to Avoid this is if the Federal Government would just Plain Refuse to "Get Involved" in Certain Issues.
"Once this occurs, power becomes centralized, thus the power structure becomes inverted. This seems to be an inevitability when man rules over himself."
See Original Post for Context. The Second of the Above Sentences is Very Interesting and Probably True.
The Rest of this Comment Relates to my Reactions to Certain Concepts and Words in your Post.
Should we Really "Tolerate" of Mistreatment of Others, though, which is what Slavery is?
And Is the Issue Really Self-Righteousness, or is there an Absolute Standard of Rightness?
The Problem with the Idea of Positive and Negative is that it Leads to Another Question, which is, Positive for Whom and Negative for Whom? Right and Wrong, though, Applies to Everyone.
Do I Dare Post Another Comment before you have had the Chance to Comment?
"Liberty and equality seems to be incompatible with each other."
In my Opinion, Liberty and INequality are Incompatible with each other and the Reason being is that when Inequality Exists, some of the People have Liberty, but the Others are Enslaved by Poverty. This does not Translate to "Liberty and Justice to all".
In Reality, there is no such Thing as Total Freedom, for such Leads to Anarchy. In Reality, a Certain Amount of Non-Freedom or Restraint is Necessary and the Real Question is should the Freedom Belong Only with those who have the Money and Power to Get what they Want and the Restraint be forced on those who are Poor who have no Money and no Power, or should the Restraint be Shared by all, so that Liberty can also be Shared by all?
In Other Words, shouldn't those who Own Business have at Least some Minor Restrictions (Restraint), so that the Poor have some sort of a Chance to also Find Happiness and Liberty?
The Reason Why Total Self-Responsibility, without any Assistance what-so-ever doesn't Work is because we are not Actually all Created with Equal Abilities and Potential.
Now I Agree that the Poor do Need to Take Responsibility for their Own Lives, but I would not go so Far as Expecting that without any Government Assistance Programs What-so-ever. There is a Balanced Answer Here and to Find it, the Democrats and Republicans Need to Work Together, rather than one Forcing their Will on the Other.
Before I Close this Comment, I just want to say,that I Wonder what ever Happened to Land Shark. Did he ever Finish Reading all these History Lessons/"Cyber Schooling". Yes, by all Means your are Welcome to Participate, just as Griper has also Welcomed you. I’d Love to Hear your Input.
think what you want lista. as i said before i'm not here to convince anyone.
but i'll say this, redefining words in order to fit your ideas will not bring you to a better understanding of someone else's thoughts.
Yes, but it is not Possible for me to Explain MY Thoughts with YOUR Definitions and my Thoughts are just as Important as yours, so I have Every Right to my Own Definitions, as Needed in Order to Express my Opinions, and anyway, I do Understand your Thoughts, I just don't Agree with you.
You Know, there is Something both Condescending and Controlling about your Comment, as if you Think Conversation is all about YOUR Thoughts and that while on Your Blog, the Understanding of YOUR Thoughts is all that Matters.
But then again, I've probably Said far too much for you to Respond to and I'm not even Done, but I'll give you a Break if you would Like me to.
fine, if you understand what i was saying then there is no reason for me to continue to try to explain my view. disagree with it as you want as i have said before.
Now I'm Seeing Evidence of Chauvinism, for BBs Words Amazed you and made a Light Bulb go Off in your head and yet you have no Desire to even Talk to me any Further, because I Disagree with you. I'm also Quite Certain that Others will see this as well, as they Read how you Respond to me.
I will Eventually Finish my Thoughts, because that is what I do, yet I Since that I may Need to Allow some Time to Pass before I do.
like i said, lista, this blog is not meant to convince others to my way of thinking. if you understand what i am trying to say in my posts that is all that i can ask of anyone. i have no intentions of trying to argue out of your thoughts if you understand me but still disagree.
and yes, BB turned a light on and the next three posts that i wrote are the results of it.
I'd like to Ask you your Motivation for making this Particular Comment...
"think what you want lista. as i said before, i'm not here to convince anyone."
Why have you not Found it Necessary to Remind anyone other than me that you are not Trying to Convince anyone? Why have you not found it Necessary to Remind anyone other than me that I am Allowed to Think What I want? Why is it that you Feel that I Need this Reminder? Are you Implying anything? If not, then What is your Motive and Why did you Think that this Reminder was Necessary?
If I am not Allowed to Redefine a Word while Expressing my Thoughts, then I am Stuck with your Point of View on the Issue and do not have the Words Necessary that I Need in Order to Express my Thoughts According to my Own Point of View. Such a Restriction is not Realistic and will Block Communication.
Once again, Why do you Feel that I Need to be Reminded that this Blog is not Meant to Convince Others and Why have you not Found it Necessary to Remind anyone Else of this Fact? What is it that you are Trying to Say to Me? You have Asked me to Ask Questions, rather than Making Assumptions, so that is Exactly what I am doing.
youre right lista, i refuse to continue this discussion any further and the reason for it is in this statement of yours:
"If I am not Allowed to Redefine a Word while Expressing my Thoughts, then I am Stuck with your Point of View on the Issue and do not have the Words Necessary that I Need in Order to Express my Thoughts According to my Own Point of View. Such a Restriction is not Realistic and will Block Communication."
that is not my definition of the phrase. it is the definition of it in accordance to the historical context of its meaning. when you decide to redefine the phrase or word you do so outside of its original context thus making a further discussion of the issue meaningless.
Hi Griper,
I Hope that you don't Mind if I Try and Finish Something that I was Working on in Relation to this Post. Please don't Assume that I'm Trying to Convince you of Something. I just Like to Finish what I Start and I Never did Finish this, for there is Still something in my Word Processor Relating to this Post that I Never did Share.
I Hate it, Griper, when People Try and Guess my Motives and if I am Assuming something Right now, then I'm Sorry, but I Started with the Approach of Asking a Question and you have not Answered me.
Anyway, I'm not Trying to Convince you of anything. I'm just Trying to Finish Sharing Something. If you are Convinced of something, then Great, but if not, which is more Likely, then that is Fine too.
Anyway, here is the Rest of what I have Stored in my Word Processor...
Speaking of One Forcing their Will on the Other, have you Noticed, Griper, that in Every Single State, the Same Conflict between Democrats and Republicans Exists? Could One Really Exist, though, without the Other? Let’s just say that all the Republicans Moved Out of the Predominately Democrat States. That would Mean that all the Businessmen and Women, would Remove their Businesses from the Democratic States, which does Happen, but if this Happened Completely, the States would Fail.
Let’s Look at the Opposite of this. What if the State was so Republican, and Non-Regulatory, that the Mistreated Workers all Moved out of the State; then there would be No One Left to do the Simper Jobs that are Generally done by those with Low Income and again the States would Fail, because there would be no Workers to Support the Businesses. Either Way, there is an Imbalance. Unfortunately, we Need Each Other, so we Might as well Learn How to Work Together.
I guess that’s it for the Post. Now for the Comments.
When BB-Idaho Listed a Few Laws that are Unique to his State, he was in a since Listing Ways in which States are Still Unique and therefore, Still Free.
He also says that when State Policy Overrides the Rights of Individuals, National Intervention Takes Place. And this is how it Should be.
I do not Believe that Liberty and Equality are Incompatible. BB has also Echoed my Thoughts in Relation to Total Liberty being the same as Anarchy.
He also Talked about the Fact that Total Equality can't Ever Exist, so you see, he is Arguing Against Extremes just as I have.
I was Intrigued by the Next Set of Comments between you and BB, Griper. I'm not sure what to say and I'm not sure if I Understand Everything and yet I’m still Intrigued by it.
Post a Comment