On Jul 24 2008 5:15 PM, Kyle T. Jones wrote:
> JerseyRudy wrote:
> <the schnipster!>
>
> >
> > This discussion is getting way off the topic, and you are failing to
> > understand what my point was about African-Americans in the south
during
> > the 1950s and 1960s. I was not saying that most of them would have
left
> > their home States...in fact, I was saying just the opposite; that most
of
> > them did not leave their home States, despite the fact that their
basic
> > civil rights were being denied by those States (the Federal Civil
Rights
> > Act came very late in the game for African-Americans in the
South)...if
> > anything this refutes your original contention (which I was making fun
of)
> > that if people don't like the laws in their particular state they can
just
> > pack up and leave for another state, and that would solve the problem
of
> > uneven laws from state-to-state that would result from a pure system
of
> > anti-federalism.
> >
>
> It doesn't refute anything. They could have packed up and moved.
> That's the point. You seem to think that they had great motivation to
> *want* to move. I think that's where we disagree. You seem to think
> the South had an unusual amount of racial tension or prejudice during
> the 50's and 60's. Like, do you know what was going on in Detroit
> during that time frame?
I'm not saying it was good in Detroit (I'm sure the 1964 Civil Rights Act
helped there as well) but I do know that many many people died were killed
for trying to get basic Civil Rights for African-Americans in the South
during that time period, and many many others were jailed and many many
others were terrorized by the KKK
>
> Let's get back to the original point: I said these decisions should be
> made by the individual State, unless there is some kind of
> constitutionally relevant issue that forces the Feds to override their
> decision. And I *don't* believe the Constitution lives, breathes, or
> requires heroic efforts of interpretation. I believe it was written as
> plain as the nose on my face. I said if the State makes a decision that
> people that live in that State don't like, they can go to a State that
> is more reflective of their own beliefs.
>
> This is where you said poor people couldn't possibly be expected to have
> the means to up and move. Which I disagreed with, and provided some
> counterexamples.
>
> You want to make this about a larger issue, I guess, but I still haven't
> seen any evidence from any of your responses that would lead me to doubt
> the idea that poor people can, indeed, move between States.
>
> Want a larger issue: down my path is a wide degree of differences
> between States. These differences result in varying degrees of success
> and failure; successful systems are copied, improved upon, tweaked with
> varying degrees of success, etc. It's, you know, like evolution.
>
> Down your path is one world government telling everyone, everywhere,
> exactly how to live. There is no "move somewhere that more closely fits
> your own views", because everywhere is the same. And you better like
> the form of that government, because there will be very little
> experimentation/adaptation/CHANGE/improvement.
>
>
There is nothing more indicative of a weak argument that painting the
abo****e extreme ****trait of the other person's argument. I never cam
close to suggesting anything close to what you describe in this paragraph.
Get a grip. I was talking about Civil Rights, Food Safety, and Consumer
Product Safety. There are other limited areas where the benefits of
Federal law are obvious. This leaves plenty of issues for the State/local
government, which is as it should be under any system based on Federalism.
>
> > Ironic that you back up your argument by providing the example of the
Joad
> > family in the "Grapes of Wrath." The plot of the book (and I admit I
> > forgot most of what I read in High School, so I had to refresh my
memory
> > online) actually shows why Federal laws are so im****tant. The Joad
family
> > became destitute upon their arrival in California because of the
> > oversupply of labor (which happens when too many people move all at
once
> > into one State), lack of rights, and the fact that big cor****ate
farmers
> > were in collusion. One of the few glimmers of hope in the book (and
this
> > is taken directly from the Wikipedia entry for the book) is presented
by
> > Weedpatch, the clean, warm camps operated by the Resettlement
> > Administration, a New Deal agency that tried to help the migrants, but
> > there is not enough money and space to care for all of the needy.
> >
> > I'm not sure if you could have provided a better example for the
utility
> > of Federal laws such as the New Deal legislation.
>
> The book illustrated the point I was making perfectly. Unless you want
> to argue that the author's interpretation of poor folks moving around to
> find better op****tunities was somehow not a close fit to reality.
But the poor folks in the book you cited did NOT find better
op****tunities. They found exploitation and misery. They were fictional
examples of why the New Deal legislation was so im****tant at that time.
>
> Have you given up completely your argument that they don't have the
> means to move between states? If so, I'll consider the point made, and
> let you talk to those more interested in the larger argument. It will
> be time better spent, as you'll never convince me that pu****ng im****tant
> decisions up to increasingly larger levels of government is a
> particularly good idea.
>
> Also, do you notice that all your arguments are presented exactly as I
> claimed these arguments are presented? Pu****ng emotional buttons,
> rather than rational thought. I don't mean that to be offensive, Rudy,
> but it's all "The times were so *bad*" and "racism!racism!racism!".
>
> This gels very well with the common political tool: using
> uncertain/fearful times and events to push through back burner policy
> that would never be allowed if cooler heads prevailed.
>
> Cheers!
The times were that bad between the Great Depression and WWII, and there
was "racism racism racism" in many states without any legal recourse to do
anything about it before the Civil Rights Act was passed...sorry if you
think that these historical facts are "pu****ng emotional buttons."
I don't think the times are that bad today, but I am still very glad we
have Federal standards for Food Safety and Consumer Product Safety.
The argument we are having is a repeat of arguments that took place before
the passing of the New Deal legislation and the Civil Rights Act. Your
side lost, and thank goodness for that. I appreciate you continuing the
argument, but if your best arguments are that you are fearful of an evil
world government, and that people can just move to another State if they
don't like the laws passed by their home state, then I think we can see
why your side lost.
Cheers!
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
