![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
jerseycajun.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWell, not really new, so much as it is coming into its own, apparently.
Washington and Colorado both passed measures effectively legalizing recreational marijuana use.
What's most interesting, or perhaps amusing to me, someone who already thinks this should have happened and nationwide, and a long time ago, is how those who reside on the political left will couch the terms of this on the national stage.
I've experienced in the past, the phenomenon that even the mention of the phrase "States Rights" elicits cries of "you want to go back to the days of segregation?!?!?" before one can even get to the part where they describe what issue it is they're applying the term to. Kind of like a peculiar variant of Tourettes' syndrome. It's almost reflexive.
But essentially, that's the only phrase we have to describe the upcoming and all but inevitable battle between these two states and the Federal level. I want to gather thoughts on the left here how they view States Rights in this context, how it compares to when those on the right use it regarding things like social support structures. Why is it different, if it's different, in your eyes?
Washington and Colorado both passed measures effectively legalizing recreational marijuana use.
What's most interesting, or perhaps amusing to me, someone who already thinks this should have happened and nationwide, and a long time ago, is how those who reside on the political left will couch the terms of this on the national stage.
I've experienced in the past, the phenomenon that even the mention of the phrase "States Rights" elicits cries of "you want to go back to the days of segregation?!?!?" before one can even get to the part where they describe what issue it is they're applying the term to. Kind of like a peculiar variant of Tourettes' syndrome. It's almost reflexive.
But essentially, that's the only phrase we have to describe the upcoming and all but inevitable battle between these two states and the Federal level. I want to gather thoughts on the left here how they view States Rights in this context, how it compares to when those on the right use it regarding things like social support structures. Why is it different, if it's different, in your eyes?
(no subject)
Date: 12/11/12 18:57 (UTC)Got a citation for that statistic?
"Were you not on the Internet when I've made the points about having to retool programs made in the 1930s for the 2010s? Of which the New Deal programs mentioned are the primary ones."
I'm offering a possible way to retool them utilizing much of the same infrastructure that already exists, but with a different level of autonomy in decision making and design in the power structure. Does that mean giving over control to smaller scale institutions when it comes to dealing with complex problems like health care,medicaid, and other things that interact directly with the population? Yes. But let's forgo the reactionary language if we can. I'm not now nor have I demonstrated a propensity towards relying on rigidly ideological solutions (at least not since I was in high school), but I do find favor with solutions which I see as practical. I'm the one offering a positive argument and alternative. You're the one now throwing around meaningless percentages that feel like they were pulled from some dark orifice, and relying on somewhat hackneyed stereotypes.
What I am proposing mimics evolutionary structures, you know, the kind that helped evolve efficient life forms from an an insanely complex universe? Only applied to institutions that face complexity, not individual life forms. Do you now deny evolutionary methods as an efficient way of dealing with the problems that arise from complexity, or is that a lesson that has to be sequestered only in anthropology and biology texts? There is at least something of a mathematical basis for making that link, worth investigating at the least.
But no, we can't do that, because you've already decided for me that what I really want is to eliminate every tax (rather than have a preference for a different kind of tax), revert to a decentralized military, and let states negotiate their own treaties with other nations or somesuch nonsense. I'm not going to argue that there are libertarians who want that, but if you're going to talk to me, talk to ME as a man capable of having my own thoughts and ideas.
You're the one who's always saying libertarians never offer any alternatives. Now I'm offering one, and a rational basis for one. The ball is in your court. Please tell me you've got something beyond the stereotypes and the knee-jerks to rebut with, because I've heard all that from you before.
Pony. Up.