Thursday, December 1, 2016

No, we shouldn't get rid of states: My case for states from over on Brad's Blog

I gave this some thought. I had my two drinks as recommended by the federal government while doing it. After giving it considerable thought, I don’t think it’s a good idea to get rid of states.

Our system of government entirely revolves around the idea of many states working together with a federal government in a balance that can be sometimes frustrating, sometimes inefficient, but ultimately provides for a great deal of diversity and freedom for the people.

We don’t have a “one-size-fits-all” set of laws in all aspects of our lives because the people in different areas of our vast country have different beliefs, cultures, and ideas. Federalism allows us to have these different cultures, beliefs, and ideas flourish together. The people of New York can have very strict gun control, while the people of Wyoming don’t. The people of Texas can have zero income taxes, while the people of Connecticut have high ones. The folks in Louisiana have some really weird real estate laws. (By the by, South Carolina has some weird laws, too.) But that weirdness makes us great.

It’s the motto of our country – e pluribus unum. Out of many…one. At our core, we are many people in one country all living together. We have different cultures, ideas, and beliefs. And this diversity is to be celebrated and protected – even thought it’s not super-efficient. However, as you’ll probably agree: Government isn’t like running a business.

Federalism allows for diversity of culture, ideas, and beliefs. Is it easy? Nope. For example, it’s it a pain in the behind for me to have to understand that the concealed carry laws in South Carolina don’t in another state. However, I respect that the people in New York have a different point of view than I do on this issue, and I don’t begrudge them the right to restrict the carrying of firearms, as wrong-headed as I think their belief might be.

Bud, I think you’re a very passionate person, I know you believe in what you believe in very deeply. That’s why you have such strong reactions to people who don’t share your viewpoint.

If you’ll permit me to give you a bit of friendly criticism, you go wrong when you think that you have a monopoly on what is right and what is good. No one does. That’s why I often in a half-joking way, occasionally state that “I’m just a moron” or “Your mileage may vary” at the end of some of my comments. Half of that is me just joking around. But the other half of it is me realizing that I don’t have the ordained wisdom of perfection in what is right and good.

What flows from your thinking thinking you have a monopoly on the right way of thinking is your desire to simply eliminate states and all the differences that they carry.

My advice is to realize that not everyone shares your exact culture, beliefs, and values – and realize that’s okay. So, let’s keep the states, and our state laws, and our differences.

But hey, I’m just a moron, and your mileage may vary.



  1. then you should join me in my attempt to get that flag off of our SC Statehouse. It has no business there, or if it must fly there, it should fly subordinate to the SC flag in that location.

    What is South Carolina? a conquered and occupied state?

    1. I'm assuming by "that flag" you're referring to the American Flag. With this you're going a bit too far, and you're barking up the wrong tree if you think I would support what you're saying.

      South Carolina is but one state in our country. We should not repudiate our national identity, nor should we subordinate our national identity. We're Americans first, South Carolinians second. Federalism doesn't mean we repudiate our national identity.

      I'm proud that the American flag flies over our statehouse. I'm proud to display the American flag at my home.

    2. precisely why our population does not understand Article Ten

      we have no sovereign entity to assert our Article Ten rights - our Statehouse can demonstrate nothing -not even visually - but obeisiance to the Federal presence

      Did the Federal flag fly on our statehouse in those days prior to the subjugation ofSouth Carolina?

      I think not

    3. I'm not sure this has anything to do with Article 10. I'm a big supporter of limiting federal action to situations where constitutional authority is clear and the problem is national in scope. For instance, with immigration or defense.

      And I'm not sure what you mean by the "federal presence". Other than Ft. Jackson, the district courthouse, the VA office on Garners Ferry, the Federal Building on Assembly, and some post offices, there's not much federal presence in Columbia.

    4. I suppose your children attend or will attend private schools- - but even there the heavy hand of the federal government directs their education. The Federal presence dictates the fear of our preachers to speak plainly - the possible loss of tax exemption and giving the issue - the federal presence through manipulation of Federal tax laws dictates almost every move a private business makes - the Federal presence dictates how we manage our roads - the "environment" - practically every aspect of our lives is manipulated in one way or another by the Federal presence - our health care system in toto another example - is it not an intrusion of the Federal government to collect taxes from individuals and business in South Carolia and then filter them through some system which controls the return of the funds to the State in order to dictate some Federal whim ? And of course - the ever present Federal immorality of taking from one man to give to another - do you not remember the first case of Federal charity to come before Congress ? When did we lose the outrage that that caused ?

      The Constitutional remedy for a Federal Government grown too strong under the second President from Illinois should have been the same as the Constitutional remedy for an overreaching Federal government under the First President from Illinois - but I have hopes that Trump will drain the Swamp - and part of that should be to withdraw the Federals from controlling the States

    5. Yes, I'm aware the federal government reaches out to lots of places it shouldn't. I'm not optimistic Trump will pull back on federal power, but I'm willing to be surprised.

  2. "I don’t think it’s a good idea to get rid of states."

    Me either. States are about the only thing from keeping us from going all Balkan, IMHO. Folks that like big government can move north or far west, folks that want to own firearms can move south or mid-west. There are several interesting books noting "clumping" or the drifting together of like minded folks. Get rid of the states powers to protect those differences and you may have very real world problems when some Federal poobah tries to explain to a primitive Baptist church in East Tennessee why they can't handle snakes.