| |
|
Random musings - Tue 26 Oct 2021 10:24:47 PM CDT A Reasonable Proposal? The population of the nation can be divided into two general classes, insofar as engagement in the affairs of determining its destiny - there is quite a considerable number of people who for various reason take no interest in it, but of those who do almost all fall into the categories described as 'liberal' or 'conservative'. A segment defining themselves as 'libertarian' is believed to constitute about fifteen to twenty-five percent, but while libertarianism covers considerable territory, almost all of it is within the conservative sphere. Thus, some minutiae aside, each fits comfortably into one of the two visions of how the nation should be governed. As the liberal camp seeks, with increasing success, to impose its vision of the proper social order upon the entire nation, it encroaches more upon the rights of those on the other side. The situation is nearing the point at which some, at least, on the conservative side will refuse to be pushed further and will resist by any means likely to be effective. That would be a most unfortunate condition, and even if the liberal forces are able to forcibly suppress the resistance - and it will only be by armed force - the process will be unpleasant for many people, many of whom are innocent. The liberals, complacent in their position, will not see the danger until it is too late. The result would be at the least a period of destructive disorder and might well bring about the end of the Unites States as a nation. Since the liberal camp is firmly convinced of the rightness of their actions and the unacceptability of being thwarted, they will almost without exception refuse to consider any compromise. On the conservative side, almost all would be willing to do so, no matter how distasteful some of the provisions might be. It would be interesting, however, to conduct a poll presenting the issue to both sides. So here is the proposal: Inasmuch as the conditions of living in some areas of the country are so unacceptable to many citizens, and as those living in more hospitable areas find themselves increasingly forced to endure hardships when the desires of those people are imposed upon them by law, the nation should offer relief to all people by making each state an autonomous zone, under the control of its current government, with no oversight or control by the federal government outside of that authorized by the Constitution. In the most essential form, each state would not be responsible to the federal government for anything other than:
Not violating any part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Remitting to the federal treasury proportionate sums (based on the state population) for financing the functions of the government authorized by the constitution. These would include defense (including Coast Guard, intelligence services, and other essential elements of national security), operation of the mints, and other services essential to the nation and not any individual state. Making available all residents eligible for conscription for military service. In all other matters each state would have complete authority, with no recourse beyond the state supreme court on any matter unless a conflict with the U.S. Constitution exists. To illustrate in the simplest terms, let us take two states, Texas and California. Texas has a law prohibiting abortions being performed after six weeks, while California has no restrictions at all. A woman who wants an abortion can go to California (or any other state, there would likely be one closer so it would not be an undue burden) and have the procedure done, and return to Texas with. A similar policy would apply to every other aspect of life not governed by the Constitution. If the people of California wish to support one out of every four residents at taxpayer expense, the taxpayers of California would bear the expense. If the voters of Texas elect not to do so, they would not have to pay to support people in California or any other state. In matters of behavioral policy the states would also be autonomous. If California legalizes marijuana or other drugs, it is the responsibility of the state. Texas can choose not to do so, or to regulate it in some other manner. The same applies to laws governing marriage. If one state recognizes homosexual marriage, polygamy, or other forms they would be free to do so, but those states choosing not to would have no obligation to recognize those other marriages. Obviously the same treatment applies go firearms (or other weapons) ownership, except that the Second Amendment must be observed. This is sufficient explanation of the concept. Since conservatives would have few if any objections, let us address the liberal arguments. They would object to the lack of uniformity of laws, since uniformity is their goal - as long as policy uniformly meets with their approval. Such was not the intent of the Constitution, if fact it was the opposite. Each state should stand or fall on its merits or deficiencies. Such was the intention of the founders. It is probably the only argument that approaches legitimacy. Others would spring from the realization that those states following the California model would rapidly fail, and without the taxpayers of the other states subsidizing their policies they would have to change. The opposite effect would take place in Texas and states following its policy. The greatly reduced taxes would result in a more prosperous population and the lower regulatory burden would encourage people and their businesses to relocate to Texas. This is already occurring, even without such reform, demonstrating the disparity between the two models. Before long, if the liberal states did now reform, they would be in even worse condition than they are now. This is the essence the problem. The primary, indeed the only, significant motivation of liberals is control. They would not tolerate the people of Texas doing what they do not approve of, even if people are free to do it in any of the states that allow it. And they loathe the thought of people in every state not being required do what they believe should be done everywhere. Added to that is that fact that most of them know what would happen if some states had their original liberties and the right of self- determination restored. Even those who know that their plans are incapable of success and can only be maintained by an endless supply of money from the producers and that can only be done under force of law. They would, as some have said, burn the country down as long as they can rule the ashes. If they ever endeavor to make the final transformation they desire, it is likely that only ashes will remain, with none to rule them. |
|