Re: Sobering History

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?

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.



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 important. 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 corporate 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 opportunities was somehow not a close fit to reality.

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 pushing important 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? Pushing 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!
.