Gautam Mukunda wrote:
...
> I would actually point out that _none_ of this
> necessarily has to be hypocrisy. The concept of
> "state's rights" to me is not that _all things_ are
> best determined at the state level, but that some
> things are. Since the overwhelming trend since the
> Second World War has been the willy-nilly
> federalization of every conceivable issue, state's
> rights proponents have often been seen as favoring
> states over the federal government in all things and,
> when they fail to do so, as people who are acting
> hypocritically. That's not necessarily fair, however.
...
It does look like people who support state's
rights on an issue do so if and only if it helps their
side. The best way to counter a charge of hypocrisy
would be to clearly articulate which things are best
left to the states and which should be federal.
For instance, medical marijuana sounds like a
classic issue where states should get to decide. The
marijuana is usually produced and consumed inside one
state, and I don't see much problem with states which
allow it becoming "marijuana sources" and giving
neighboring states enforcement problems. (Outright
legalization would result in marijuana stores being set
up on the borders with neighboring states--that would have
a major impact that crossed state borders.)
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
