Quote:
Originally Posted by Autotune
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
it is more the states rights to tell a woman what she can/can't do than the federal governments right.
Like you i think the woman should have total control. However, the federal government should have no say in anything of that matter. States should be left to govern themselves.
Just my take on it.
|
My problem with this is that by leaving it up to the states you immediately affect the quality of statehood for each constituent. It should be a federal government situation because
one state should not grant rights while another denies them. That is backwards and goes against what the purpose and spirit of the Bill of Rights was written for. In terms of gay marriage or abortion, it is not right to say, "oh it's okay in Connecticut but in North Carolina the population says they hate you," because of the way a constituency votes on a topic that does not directly affect them. If we are looking to mold and manufacture our society to act a certain way (social evolution) then the majority should work against those in the minority in attempts to weed them out via state-level control on social issues. If we are looking to allow for free rights and no persecution for personal choices, then we are heading down the wrong path because your neighbor is passing judgement upon you.
Social issues should be nationwide as they affect who comes in and enjoys their rights in this country. In relation to other debates involving economics some people argue, "oh well you were born in the US you should consider yourself lucky because compared to the rest of the world you are one of the richest and most powerful people ever." To pull back on that picture, the "luck of the draw" of all economic and social issues comes down to where you are born, not what rights you have as a citizen of the country. So let's apply that same statement to social issues: "You should consider yourself lucky because compared to the rest of the world you have the most rights out of any other nation." Well if I was born here then why is there still a repression of ideas by the tyranny of a majority? Where are those that are in the minority being represented? What power do they have? How does this seem any more reasonable to be born into a location where you have no right to anything except unfair persecution? Wasn't that the intent of leaving the old world in favor of America? Not everyone can move out of North Carolina or California to be somewhere that can accommodate. If Ron Paul wants to transparently say, "this is an option each state must consider and is not ever going to be a guaranteed right," then I can understand where he is coming from politically... he's following the Constitution and not looking at the social implications.
Not only does this apply to abortion and gay marriage but let's look at other state-level vs federal issues. Insurance. Montana, who is looking to opt out of the Obamacare in favor of a socialized plan as seen in Saskatchewan, Canada. Saskatch has service that costs half as much as ours and it supports a fairly large population. If Montana ducks out of Obamacare they may have better service. Good for them. However, it could go wrong if hospitals decide that they cannot make a profit there anymore and move away. The hospital system would fall apart because much like what is seen in the international pharmaceuticals trade, the people will flock to the cheaper areas and the businesses would go to the more profitable areas. If the system works out and entire regions go after it, then there is a support network to reinforce a motivation to continue offering medical service. If every state joins in, hell yeah. they just fixed the old system by replacing it with a more regulated version. As another example, I think Japan only has $10bil in medical insurance yet they support a population of 127 million. The government pays 70% of cost. Not shabby.. everyone is covered and the system is nationwide. With Ron Paul's idea, what could happen is that some states opt in and some states opt out. If a few states that cannot support themselves decide to stay in a now marginalized federal system, those states suffer. The constituents become a victim of poor management. This is no different than with abortion or gay marriage or any other social issue... someone somewhere gets stepped on and everyone else looks the other way because.. well.. it's in the law books.
I'm in North Carolina. We have a vote on gay marriage next May. I registered to vote for the first time because I realized, "wow, my neighbors are shitheads." I refuse to believe it is fair for people who yell, "FUCK YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS," at the people in a local gay bar are the kind of people who should have any heavy-handed power over other people yet a state vote is coming in half a year to allow that to happen.
12-05-2011, 04:43 AM
Linear Mode
