This is a thought piece -- asking questions, seeking open discussion (vs dogmatic polemics), not the expression of a firm POV.
What do the items in the title have in common? The issue is at what level of government should decisions primarily be made. And when should decisions be made at a higher broader level, compared to "local issues". This was a key issue for the founding fathers as well as the current constitution makers in Iraq. Its relevant for FF -- hog farm laws being made at the state level, overriding local preferences and ordinances. Its relelvant to pot smokers -- a metaphor for most perosonal freedom and victimless crime issues. (See story on local ordinance in Telluride CO, to make marijuana laws the lowest priority for LE -- similar to exisiting initiatives in Seattle and Oakland.) http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2005/10/21/news/top_stories/news02.txt Its relevant for Roe vs Wade -- which may come before a Roberts / Miers Supreme Court -- and for the first time in over 30 years, could face reversal. Though it should be noted, the overturn of Roe v Wade, contrary to popular belief, would not outlaw abortion. It would simply allow states to make their own laws on the matter. The overturn of Roe v Wade would surely not affect the legality of abortions in California and New York. It might affect it in Alabamba and Missisippi. As a starting point, a reasonable premise appears to be that all laws and regulations should be at the most local level possible -- unless a clear case can be made that citizens in other communities, or the state as a whole, or the nation as a whole are adversely affected by a local ordinance. Classical exceptions would be violations of the guaranteed freedoms in the Bill of Rights and the collective will of the national and state constitutions. As well as federal and state laws and regulations. But how many of such, particularly the the latter, can make the clear case that that citizens in other communities, or the state as a whole, or the nation as a whole are adversely affected by a local ordinance? And that the state and federal law is not simply the result of power politics in which a vested interest has sought and gained some economic or political advantage by forcing its agenda on all localities through laws at the state orfederal level? It would appear that the hog farm state law is an example of the latter. Hog farmers presumably have a strong lobby in the state and were able to impose their interests on the whole -- even thought it clearly violates the will of locals and their interests -- as is the case in FF. The ambiance, spiritual nature and certainly aroma of the town may be destroyed -- along with the economy and housing market, because hog farmers have free reign to set up shop anywhere in the state. It would appear that state and federal pot laws are an example of the latter, driven by economic interests -- alcohol producers and distributers, and moral interests, those who seek to impose their sense of morality on all others. What does it possibly affect other Colorado towns if Telluride essentially legalizes (beyond deriminalization) pot laws? How does it possible effect the country as a whole. Yet such a local ordinance would be at odds with both state and federal law. Are federal and state interests really affected? And should they have the power to superceed local interests and preferences? Above are arguments for local decision making in hog farming and pot -- these being representative issues-- more broadly symbolic for a large spectrum of state and federal laws that impose on local interests. What then are the argument for universal abortion rights, over the interests of local intersts in which a majority feel such is immoral? Raising such a point makes me cringe -- Roe v Wade is ingrained in me as "gospel" -- but raising the issue is a reasonable extension of topic: local interests vs state and federal imposition of larger interests. For example, if abortion rights were decided on a local level, as is alcohol sales -- not equating the two -- a patchwork of legal and non legal counties or towns would emerge. I imagine most blue states would be virtually the same as today -- with universal abortion rights. Red states may be more of a patchwork. Would a womans right to choose be severely restricted in such a framework? Not at all in "blue states". In red states, woman in perhaps a third of towns or counties would have to travel to other counties or towns for an abortion. Or move there if they felt their general freedoms were compromised. This would appear to be an inconvenience, not a absolute restriction of abortion rights. And communities that strongly feel abortion to be a sin, while I don't agree with them, would have the sanctity of their local wills preserved. What about efficieny? A common problem with a patchwork of local laws is that it takes more effort to know the local laws when traveling. Or for firms doing business state-wide or nationally-- across many localities and their different statues. The EU has motivated / forced concensus and standardization of many laws -- those pertaining to trade and commerce -- across diverse nations, often with much local discontent, in order to gain effeciency and economic ompetitiveness. However, hog farms, pot smoking, and abortion rights -- and the broader spectrum of laws such examples represent, don't seem to fall under the efficiency umbrella. Local autonomy and diversity or uniformity and higher level imposition of wills? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
