States Rights & Local Control--(aka PING: Bucc)

[albionmoonlight]

A lot of people say that they are for state’s rights. I think that QuikSand noted in a previous thread that, for 90% people, "states rights" is just shorthand for people who want to say "I don’t like this particular policy decision by the federal government," but want to sound intellectual when they say it.

There are some on this board, however, (most notably Bucc) who have an intellectually-consistent, comprehensive view of "states rights" and local control. They believe that, in almost all instances, decisions should be made at the most local level that is feasible.

Last year, I worked with a guy who, for lack of a better term, we will call an anti-federalist. He believed in the exact opposite of local control--that decisions should be made at the broadest level of government possible. His thinking was that if you think that something is a good idea (whatever the issue--that abortion should be legal, or that the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent, or that we should encourage alternative energy use, etc.), then you should, by definition, want that good idea to apply as broadly as possible. In his view, it seemed silly to say that your view on an issue as important as, say, the death penalty should be secondary to your view on "states rights." That whatever you believe about the death penalty, you should naturally want that view, which you consider to be right by definition, to apply as broadly as possible. He, of course, acknowledged that some things should be left to local administration--trash pickup and the like--but only as a matter of administrative necessity.

Having debated these issues both with him and with a fair number of self-styled "states rights" guys, I have come to a conclusion. Namely, that I personally cannot find any intellectually consistent framework regarding local control. I don’t think that I really have a dog in this fight at all. There are some issues that I think make sense to control at the federal level, e.g., environmental concerns, securities regulation, disaster relief, national defense. There are other issues that I think should be extremely local--education for one. I think that teachers should trump schools should trump districts should trump states should trump the fed. The more local the control in education the better. And there are other issues that I think make sense to run at the state level--criminal law, road maintenance, etc.

There is no rhyme or reason to my approach. Present me with an issue, and I will think about it and decide the level at which it should be controlled. But my decision will be very issue dependent. It will not pull from some "federalist" or "anti-federalist" ideology. It will just be.

So, having decided all of this, I thought that it might be interesting for people who do care about the issue of "local control" (on either side) to explain why they believe what they do--and if there are exceptions to their belief system, etc. Basically, to try to discuss the issue.

Finally, I am more interested in the theory of local control rather than the constitutional aspects of it. I get enough of the latter at work. Let’s just pretend for this discussion that the constitution lets us do whatever we want.

[lungs]

I'd consider myself in favor of more local control. My main reasoning is that although we may be one country, we are really a mosaic of different regional interests and attitudes. I tend to believe that policies can be better fitted if devised at the local level to fit local interests.

Your example of the death penalty is a good one. I am not in favor of the death penalty. I live in a state that does not impose the death penalty. Although I am against the death penalty, I don't believe in imposing our will on other states. The same goes for abortion if you ask me. I'm pro-choice but on the same hand believe that states ought to have the option to ban it if they wish.

The things I find appropriate for the Federal level are things such as defense and foreign relations.

I am starting to find this topic interesting and haven't completely formed my views yet as it happens to be a topic I am currently studying in the context of the early years of our nation. I realize the Articles of Confederation were not viable to an infant nation and a stronger Federal government was needed to survive infancy, but I think Thomas Jefferson had an excellent idea in which he wanted to re-visit the Constitution every 20 years, if not completely re-write it. You can argue that the Supreme Court does this in a way, but I'm thinking Jefferson was thinking more along the lines of a Constitutional Convention every 20 years instead of having appointed judges interpreting it anytime there was a question.

An interesting topic, nonetheless.

[st.cronin]

I don't understand the concept of state's rights at all. Nobody ever talks about the rights of 'towns' to enact whatever silly laws they want (realizing that they do, and as long as they don't conflict with the state/federal it's ok).

[Samdari]

I worked with a guy who, for lack of a better term, we will call an anti-federalist. He believed in the exact opposite of local control--that decisions should be made at the broadest level of government possible.

Isn't federalist someone who wants a strong national government, and anti-federalist someone who want the national government to be a loose confederation of strong states? Sounds like you are describing a federalist.

[albionmoonlight]

Isn't federalist someone who wants a strong national government, and anti-federalist someone who want the national government to be a loose confederation of strong states? Sounds like you are describing a federalist.I've actually heard the term used both ways. Sometimes people who are into states rights call themselves Federalists--in order to emphasize the power of the states in our dual system.

Maybe the better terms would be "localist" and "universalist."

[Samdari]

Sometimes people who are into states rights call themselves Federalists--in order to emphasize the power of the states

Uh......

To me, this speaks to their complete lack of understanding of the word federal.

[John Galt]

Uh......

To me, this speaks to their complete lack of understanding of the word federal.

I think it has to do with the terms as they were used in the 18th Century as opposed to now.

[John Galt]

I don't understand the concept of state's rights at all. Nobody ever talks about the rights of 'towns' to enact whatever silly laws they want (realizing that they do, and as long as they don't conflict with the state/federal it's ok).

Actually, "town's rights" is an issue in parts of the country. Especially in the Midwest, lots of states have something called Home Rule which divides duties among the state and cities/towns. In Iowa for example, cities that have tried to pass a business smoking ban have had the ordinances struck down because home rule requires the states to pass such a measure.

[Buzzbee]

My first reaction, without really thinking about it in any great detail, is that the bigger the impact on the local population, the greater the local control. The greater the impact to a wider range of citizens, the greater the need for the control to be at the state and ultimately Federal level.

Trash pickup isn't a national concern. Murder commited in Charlotte, North Carolina isn't necessarily the concern of those in Ottumwa, Iowa. A rail line going from Atlanta to Chattanooga isn't the concern of farmers in Nebraska. Protecting our nation from invasion or attacks such as 9/11 are the concerns of all Americans.

So, at first pass, it seems that the scope of the impact should determine the scope of the control.

[Drake]

Actually, "town's rights" is an issue in parts of the country. Especially in the Midwest, lots of states have something called Home Rule which divides duties among the state and cities/towns. In Iowa for example, cities that have tried to pass a business smoking ban have had the ordinances struck down because home rule requires the states to pass such a measure.

This is getting big in Indiana too, especially when a municipality has a radically different or radically more progressive political ideology than the state. Read: A largely Democratic city in a largely Republican state.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I think it has to do with the terms as they were used in the 18th Century as opposed to now.

The terms were, I think, adapted from debate about the British government prior to the revolution. Some thought that the power of sovereignty was unitary and the Parliament was sovereign over all British holdings. The opposition believed in a federal (as in a federation) system where legislative power was divided between Parliament that had power over England and over matters of imperial importance and local legislatures who were sovereign over their territory.

At the time of the framing the term was adapted to the describe one of the two competiting theories of central government (federal and national). The federal view of the government was that the central government could only act against states (this was the case of the government created by the Articles of Confederation), and not directly on people. The national view of the government was that the central government should be able to act directly on citizens. The Constitution adopted some elements of both models. The biggest part of the compromise was the limitation of the federal government to an enumerated list of powers, with all other powers delegated to the states.

The terminology became muddled immediately when, during the campaign for ratification, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay coopted the term Federalist for their Federalist papers. They were defending the constitution from critics, who then took the title of anti-federalist, who generally thought that the central government would be too powerful. So already here is the association of "federalism" with strong central power. But the part of the constitution that is actually the "federalist compromise" is the part that limits central power... So.. yeah, it's confusing.

[sabotai]

I wish I was more outspoken politically. Then I'd get mentioned in thread titles too. :(

[sterlingice]

A lot of people say that they are for state’s rights. I think that QuikSand noted in a previous thread that, for 90% people, "states rights" is just shorthand for people who want to say "I don’t like this particular policy decision by the federal government," but want to sound intellectual when they say it.Where was this thread- I must have missed it (agree with the assertion, btw)

SI

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Well, when it's being used by cable pundits, states rights means states rights to ban abortion, gay marriage, reverse all gun control laws and affirimitive action, but still, if you have cancer and get caught with some pot, you still go to the slammer because drugs are evil.

[Buccaneer]

They believe that, in almost all instances, decisions should be made at the most local level that is feasible.

That is accurate, thanks for nicely summing up my viewpoint.

WARNING: Rambling, incoherent points ahead.

There is a societal aspect to this debate that relates to geography and history. As the nation grew, the rate of technology grew even faster. This has simply allowed society to compress space and time. In other words, it's the "small world" effect: what was distant now has become near. When communications took 4 months to reach the ruling government (as it did under the British Crown), people were forced to govern themselves on a day-to-day basis. But what happens when the ruling government can reasonably know what goes on in every single municipality at any given time? Has then the Federal Govt become like the Selectmen governing the town meeting - with only a greater magnitude of scale? They certainly feel they can and the population have assumed as much. But how well does it and can it work?

Here's the crux of the issue. The laws that govern the land must be enacted equally, fairly and without prejudice. Do you think that all laws can be equally applied to every single municipality as if we are one big town? Of course not. We know because of various economical, social, geographical and cultural reasons, there are enough differences to where laws (and legislation) have to be segmentated. Ok, we have regional authorities and big state governments. Same question applies. At what point does it makes sense? There is no one answer except for what becomes feasible and practical. That's where the problem comes in.

We have attempted, for good reasons and bad, to legislation everything at every level. That may sound like a hyperbole but follow me on this. You take any specific article of legislation. You will find it covered to a degree in your municipal code, in your County code, in your State codes and in Federal statutes - many, many times over. Paradoxically, the same articles in all of the levels will be redundant and conflicting, legally vague and case specific, as well as enforceable and non-enforceable. So what's the problem?

Costs, for one. We have and will continue to pay at all levels to maintain these laws. If the majority of such laws are enforced and applicable to your locale, why do the greater part of your taxation go to the national level and then to the state level with the local govt receiving the smallest share? Believe it or not, it didn't use to be this way. Once the federal bureaucracy exploded in the 1930s, it has been driven to not only to maintain that but to grow it accordingly. As the result, it has to invent ways to make itself relevant and keep the revenue streams coming in. That is why we have a Federal Dept of Education, a State Dept of Education in addition to where the real power lies, at your local School District. Can this example be applied to other areas as well?

But it does make sense to pool resources to offer an economy of scale. The problem not only becomes a reduced realization of benefits in terms of cost, but how the bigger govts can rule over smaller ones when the bigger ones have the most monies. To get an interstate bridge repaired in your city because the local population is complaining about its safety, 80% of such repairs will be funded by the Feds. What if it was the other way around where the city received the greatest share of taxation? Not only would the bridge be repaired faster (because it does not have to compete) but it comes with no mandates or blackmails to get such money.

Well, there are standards that should be applied everywhere (like in a bridge construction). Sure, but there are standards at all levels of govts which makes it another one of those things are legislated at all levels and cost money at all levels. Do you think that federal standards would be radically different than what your city or county comes up with, esp. since the Feds HAVE to come up with a one-size-fits-all rules and standards.

Ok, so what, at least it can make sure that all bridges or schools or whatever applies to a minimum standard. I got news for you. Despite all of the trillions of dollars spent, millions of salaried workers paid and enough legislation to keep a million lawyers eternally retained, we still have failing bridges, failing schools, impoverished citizens, drug trafficing and abuse galore, etc.

What did we get for all of the trillions they have received from us? To stay in about the same place before the trillions were spent? Is that really worth it? If those trillions were to have stayed in the local economies, would we have been much worse off or perhaps there would be a chance that more places we have been better able to do things because of more direct control and accountability?

The reason to keep bringing up a libertarian perspective in nearly every argument is one of mindset and populism. In other words, affecting change from the grassroots. We can all see how quickly a popular cultural change can take place in this country. It is because of word of mouth, the "coolness" factor coupled with the media and other cultural outlets expressed positive encouragement that further fuels the change. Political change had and still can operate in this manner. The population makes too many excuses to engage in meaningful change, the media perpetuates the bad attitude and those in power work hard to maintain the status quo.

Specifically, if one wishes for the community to take greater personal responsibilities for caring for those in need, for education, for support of the elderly and infirmed, for ministering to unwed mothers, to feeding those that are hungry, etc. a more distant government should not and would not because they don't think you are that important. Only you and those living around you think you and your community are important enough to care about. You can affect change in a much greater way by giving $1000 locally. The same amount of money would realize lesser benefits as the ruling governments increase in scale. It is not only about personal responsibilities but community responsibilities. If more control and monies had been kept locally, some communities would be better off than they are now and some would be worse off.

In other words, the exact same results as giving the majority of your taxation to the Federal Govt.

[Drake]

Well, when it's being used by cable pundits, states rights means states rights to ban abortion, gay marriage, reverse all gun control laws and affirimitive action, but still, if you have cancer and get caught with some pot, you still go to the slammer because drugs are evil.

Hmm. This actually makes me think of the Wal-Mart thread, where it was suggested that when people are confronted with moral, ethical or legal situations to which they're opposed, they should quit their jobs and move to one that doesn't offend them. You seem to be suggesting that they should take the same approach to their local, state and federal governance. Either that, I suppose, or just remain silent and keep their values to themselves while publicly being railroaded into espousing the popular views on everything.

Here I thought Conservatives had cornered the market on the "Love it or Leave it" ideology.

[albionmoonlight]

Interesting thoughts, Bucc.

One of the things I have noticed as a government lawyer is that the people working on behalf of the federal government are generally a lot more competent than those working for state or local government. That would, on some level, seem like an argument for putting more things in control of the Fed. But your post raises an interesting chicken/egg issue. The reason that the federal employees are generally more competent is because the jobs tend to pay more and have better benefits. Which the Fed. can afford to do because it takes a larger piece of the pie than does the state/local governments. If the fed lowered its tax burden and the states picked up the slack, then you may see a situation where the local DA could pay more than the U.S. Attorney's office, and you would have more qualified people going to work for the DA. Of course, since we now live in a world where federal employment is more beneficial than state employment, that will sort of perpetuate itself. Once you hire all these federal workers, you need to keep collecting tax revenue to pay them.

I also wonder if, based on your framework, there may be a way to divide the responsibility between large and small government based on whether the government is trying to provide a service or whether it is making a stand on a moral/social issue. You raise good arguments why we would be better off if we left running the schools and building the roads up to the local areas. But what about things like--whether stem cell research should be allowed. Or whether the death penalty should be outlawed. Or whether abortion should be allowed. There may still be an argument that (to the extent we want government involved in these decisions at all) those decisions should be made at the largest level possible. If I beleive that abortion is murder, then I would want (if possible) abortion banned around the world. Once I decide that it is an issue important enough to demand government attention, I don't want to let localities make up their own mind. I want my world to adopt my view of the right thing to be done.

Decisions of that nature would seem to implicate your efficiency concerns to a much smaller degree than do thing that actually require the collection and redistribution of wealth in the form of roads, schools, police, etc.

[Desnudo]

I don't understand the concept of state's rights at all. Nobody ever talks about the rights of 'towns' to enact whatever silly laws they want (realizing that they do, and as long as they don't conflict with the state/federal it's ok).

The concept of state's rights is that the federal government should provide guidance through interpretation and ammendment of the constitution and leave enforcement and interpretation of that guidance to the local level. From an efficiency perspecive, it makes sense. The economic cost of centralized government is much higher and very inefficient when compared to localized. The idea of states rights is really capitalist theory at the macro level. Let the individual decide rather than centrally plan. It makes sense if you consider day-to-day decision making is much easier and logically made at the local level, rather than the national.

[Buccaneer]

albion, I have been of the belief that human governments cannot legislate morality. The governments deal in laws and legalism, therefore the context of any moral decisions become a matter of law. The reason that governments should not legislate morality is that it cannot make one become moral or more moral. That is why the moral issues should not be answered by governments and legalism but instead by personal responsibilities and moral faiths. What does it matter what the government decides what is legal or not? It does for civil reason but not for moral or personal reasons. You use the example of abortion. If someone were to come to me for advice, I would prayerfully counsel the person out of love. It matters not whether it is legal or illegal to have an abortion performed in my state or country. It is the cause of sin that becomes the domain of personal responsibilities. The governments can only address, in part, the symptoms of sin.

You also mentioned the death penalty. If in your heart you abide by the commandment to love one another and not to kill, then that is all you can do. If enough believe that for the right reason, then it becomes moot whether the governments make capital punishment legal or illegal. They do so purely for civil reasons. Outlawing the death penalty will not change hearts, so what does it matter? I do not think a soul will be judge based on humanistic laws. Christ said to render under Caesar what is his and that includes man's laws. You abide such laws because we are called to be the light of the world. To want to use human laws to change oneself and to affect the hearts of others just cannot be done.

So instead of a top-down approach to "morality-based" legislation, it can only come from the bottom-up (grassroots). To put it in the vernacular, charity does start at home with the one, then with the few and then with the many. We have lost our personal sense of committment and responsibilities to others, and of our selflessness. No governmental or legal system can ensure those. That is why theocracies have not worked in human history unless by brute force (which becomes contradictory) and why attempts by our federal government to "make things better" end up not only being costly (because of greed and power) but in many cases, make things worse.

[albionmoonlight]

albion, I have been of the belief that human governments cannot legislate morality. The governments deal in laws and legalism, therefore the context of any moral decisions become a matter of law. The reason that governments should not legislate morality is that it cannot make one become moral or more moral. That is why the moral issues should not be answered by governments and legalism but instead by personal responsibilities and moral faiths. What does it matter what the government decides what is legal or not? It does for civil reason but not for moral or personal reasons. You use the example of abortion. If someone were to come to me for advice, I would prayerfully counsel the person out of love. It matters not whether it is legal or illegal to have an abortion performed in my state or country. It is the cause of sin that becomes the domain of personal responsibilities. The governments can only address, in part, the symptoms of sin.

You also mentioned the death penalty. If in your heart you abide by the commandment to love one another and not to kill, then that is all you can do. If enough believe that for the right reason, then it becomes moot whether the governments make capital punishment legal or illegal. They do so purely for civil reasons. Outlawing the death penalty will not change hearts, so what does it matter? I do not think a soul will be judge based on humanistic laws. Christ said to render under Caesar what is his and that includes man's laws. You abide such laws because we are called to be the light of the world. To want to use human laws to change oneself and to affect the hearts of others just cannot be done.

So instead of a top-down approach to "morality-based" legislation, it can only come from the bottom-up (grassroots). To put it in the vernacular, charity does start at home with the one, then with the few and then with the many. We have lost our personal sense of committment and responsibilities to others, and of our selflessness. No governmental or legal system can ensure those. That is why theocracies have not worked in human history unless by brute force (which becomes contradictory) and why attempts by our federal government to "make things better" end up not only being costly (because of greed and power) but in many cases, make things worse.
Wow, I can't beleive that I missed this when it was first posted. Very good thoughts, the vast majority of which I agree with. One cannot legislate morality. You can't force someone to be "good." This does, to me, beg a question, though. Specifically, should our governmental decisions be made on soley utilitarian basis? If there is no room for morality, is there then room for fairness or integrity or other intangible issues?

To take an example. Let's say that it could be proven that rampant filesharing would not diminish the amount or quality of intellectual property in the world--that allowing people to freely share whatever music or games or movies they want would keep the quality of product out there the same, but allow more people to experience it.1 Should we then amend the intellectual property laws to allow for (and even encourage) free filesharing? Is there any place in the law for "fairness." When Jim complains that he gave up his day job to do this, and it is not fair to let people bootleg FOF because then he won't be able to afford to keep making it, do we respond with "Yeah, that's too bad, but some guys are willing to make games as good as FOF for free, so society won't lose with this." Is there any place in the law for the idea that people should have the right to keep their property to themselves--even when the economic analysis demonstrates that such a decision would simply reduce the overall enjoyment of the property in the world? In other words, is there room for "fairness" and "personal autonomy?" And, if so, how does that differ from "morality?"

To take another example--taxing the wage earners and using the proceeds to provide services to those earning less.2 There is the pure economic analysis of the issue--what policy will bring the greatest good to the greatest number in this society. But then there are "moral" issues. Should a handicapped orphan child be hungry on the street while a millionaire owns 5 houses? On the other side of the coin, one could argue that it is simply not fair to take what I have worked hard and sacrificed to earn and give it to someone who did not work that hard. It diminishes the sacrifice that I made to earn that money and is an affront to my personal autonomy. Certainly, as we make social policy, we recognize the economic arguments (welfare is not efficient, it provides an incentive to be a drain on society, etc.), but the things that get people to vote are the emotional-moral issues. People remember the "welfare queen" commercials more than they remember any actual policy debates about welfare. Again, I wonder how easy it is to really separate morality from the equation. It may be optimal, but it may not be realistic right now--at least if you define morality broadly.

I would also question whether it is possible to totally separate morality--even in its traditional sense--from the law in every instance. For example, we as a nation have decided to outlaw cruel and unusual punishment inflicted by the state. Once a government makes that choice, and I think that it is a good one to make, it is hard to take morality out of the equation. You have to decide what is cruel for one person to do to another person. You have to decide what is unusual. These are questions that, to me, implicate moral choices.

1. I, personally, don't think that this is true. But let's say that there are enough people out there who love making music, that lots of good free music would be made, and the really good bands would support themselves with concerts and merc. sales. Or that some rich millionaires decide to sponsor the making of movies and games, and the rest of us just get free copies. The point is, it is only a hypothetical.

2. I don't agree with the image that the vast majority of funds collected by the government are used for welfare type programs. Most of that on which we spend money--military, police, justice system, securities regulation, bank protection, etc. is designed to protect those of us with something to protect. I'm not saying that that's a bad thing--only correcting a very common misperception.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Actually, "town's rights" is an issue in parts of the country. Especially in the Midwest, lots of states have something called Home Rule which divides duties among the state and cities/towns. In Iowa for example, cities that have tried to pass a business smoking ban have had the ordinances struck down because home rule requires the states to pass such a measure.
Michigan has these laws as well.

[Huckleberry]

I don't understand the concept of state's rights at all. Nobody ever talks about the rights of 'towns' to enact whatever silly laws they want (realizing that they do, and as long as they don't conflict with the state/federal it's ok).
What's not to understand? The question of states' rights is a question to be answered at the national level. What is the structure of the national government and how are the powers delegated between that national government at the state governments.

The question of towns' rights is a question to be answered at the state level. It will be a separate question and discussion for each state. Here in Texas I have no real interest in the towns' rights question for Indiana. Likewise those in Indiana have no real interest in my local debate.

The states' rights debate is one in which all Americans have an interest.

Although I don't think albion wanted this thread headed this way so I'll stop now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... it was suggested that when people are confronted with moral, ethical or legal situations to which they're opposed, they should quit their jobs and move to one that doesn't offend them.

Take this for what you will, but the local political climate plays a significant role in determining what places I find acceptable/unacceptable as we look toward buying a new house in a different town.

I've lived in a situation where I felt I had zero voice from my elected "representatives" (italicized because they sure as hell weren't representing me or my interests when they voted) and it isn't something I choose to willingly put myself through again.

Currently, I've got the illusion of having a voice, or at least an opportunity to be heard by my state representative (a pretty good guy, has always been honest with me even when we disagreed on something). If I call / email him, he responds, personally & promptly, even if his response is something he knows I won't like hearing. And that's worth ... something. Or at least it is to me.

So I certainly believe that it's reasonable to keep such things in mind when you're relocating and would likewise believe it's a worthwhile reason to relocate (it is at least a small part of our current desire to move).

[Buccaneer]

Well, there goes my threadkill.

albion, good questions. I'm going to have to think on those before responding.

I actually thought about this thread when hearing the news about South Dakota and the abortion near-ban. From what I can gather, there have been very little demand for abortions in that state, so what does it matter whether there's a law to ban them or not? That's the point. If for whatever Constitutional reason(s), the practice of abortions has to remain legal, the goal would then be to make that irrelevant - just as it somewhat appears to have happened in SD. While I believe a national ban will act somewhat of a deterent (as most laws do affect behavior), true change can only come from the individual (personal responsibilities) and its sphere of influence.

[maxwarrior]

You realize there has been an unspoken ban on abortion in SD? The Anti-Abortionists have made the doctors in SD fearful. The only place to get an abortion in SD is in Souix Falls by doctors who volunteer and travel to SD.

[Buccaneer]

I am aware that what SD did was more of a symbolic act than anything meaningful. I recall reading that there were less than 1000 abortions performed in SD (for whatever reasons) and I believe the goal is not to fight so much for legalities/illegalities, but to reduce that number. There are many ways, including legislative means, to make that happen but both sides would rather fight each other in the courts.

I don't want to dwell on this for I was just using this as an example, albeit probably a poor one at that. I guess the goal would be to put the federal legislature and courts out of business (theoretically speaking) and that can be done by rendering the endless, expensive cycle of legislation - court battles moot. To use another extreme example, what if there would be no need to have the death penalty due to no one committing a serious enough crime that would warrant such actions?

[albionmoonlight]

Just to repeat, I agree with you, Bucc, on most all points. You cannot force someone to be good. You can legislate against bad acts, and you can give tax breaks and other incentives for good acts, but--at the end of the day--you are not really going to change people's hearts.

And, I think that part of the endless cycle of court battles comes from the fact that we are, as someone once put it, "awash in rights." We all have so many rights these days. Some of these rights are important and fundamental. But some of them are not so much. And everyone feels entitled to exercise their rights. Part of that is the system's fault--for not providing enough disincentives to people who file frivilous lawsuits. And some of that is the fault of unethical attorneys who advise people that they have cases when they actually do not. These all lead to a culture of entitlement in which going to court (an very costly process for society) is seen as the default position if you feel that you have been wronged.

And that becomes a shame because we all start to get more worried about suing and being sued than about changing the underlying problems that lead to the lawsuits. If you are on the board of directors of a large corporation, you can get sued by your shareholders if you don't make enough money, and you can get sued by your customers if you cut some safety corners on your product in order to appease your shareholders. That leads to a somewhat reactive mindset to say the least.

There are, of course, some rights that I think are fundamental and a good thing. Most of those rights are our rights viz a viz the government. As a good libertarian, you understand that it is very easy for the government to get corrupt if its power is not checked by the people. My right to stand on the street corner and praise the virtures of Hitler or Al Queda is one that the government should not be able to squelch. Or my right to keep and bear arms, or keep buy a grow light and a water pipe and not have the government start snooping around and searching me and seizing my stuff. Or my right to be tried by a jury of my peers if I am accused of a serious crime. These are all rights that are important, but that cannot be left just to the political branches. Who was the last politician who won an election on the platform of "I would die to protect the rights of flag burners and Al Queda spokesmen" or "I will fight to properly restrain the police as they work to keep drugs and guns off the street" or "We need to increase the funding going to the public defender so that accused criminals get the best possible defense we can provide them."

Maybe in a perfect world, people would understand the issues well enough to listen to politicians like that and not just dismiss them out of hand. But, as our framers recognized, we don't live in a perfect world. And the only way that people in the unpopular minority are going to have their rights protected is through an independent and fair judiciary. The political branches are, by definition, great at getting the will of the majority written into law and enforced. They are, by definition, piss-poor at protecting the rights of the minority. You need at least one branch dedicated to being immune to the majority will. And that, in our case, in the judiciary. Which is why the KKK can go to court and have their right to peacably assemble enforced. And those rights are essential if we want to live in a country anything like the America in which we now live.

I totally agree that there are way too many "rights" and way too much litigation going on right now. And too many people want to run to court with any little problem, and the system does not do enough to discourage them. But we CANNOT throw out the baby with the bathwater. There will always be a place for the rights of the minority in any government worth having. And there needs to be a way to enforce those rights against the will of the majority.