Adurentibus Spina wrote:Hoka, the "smaller government" stuff is weird on its own. Is is not an implication of your view that if, say, Nebraska, decided that it was cheaper and better to just not have free public education at all, you'd be totally fine with that, since it's within a "state's rights" to do so, and it would be "worse" if the federal government told them they had to have free public education?
I would absolutely be fine with that.
But how likely is that to happen? Does Nebraska want to compete with other states for business? Good luck doing that without a public education system.
States compete against one another all the time in a variety of ways. Hell, Florida doesn't have an income tax. Why is that acceptable? Why can some states offer healthcare to all of their citizens? Why can some states offer more tax breaks for businesses to move there?
Because they're functioning as intended. There are states for a reason. We don't just have the USA. We have 50 individual states within that are tied under the constitution but then compete against one another for how to do it best. This applies in most ways, except when the federal government chooses to intervene. Like in California where the citizens are clearly ok with medical marijuana but the feds won't let them. That should be an obvious rallying point for liberals for states rights. People that are not states rights advocates forget that states generally operate individually except in these handful of instances where the feds decide their rules supercede what the state wants for itself. Then when people say "that's wrong, inconsistent, and against the constitution" they freak out and say "bbbbut slavery and we're all one nation and stuff!" Not understanding that states ALREADY function somewhat autonomously in many ways, as intended.
mockbee wrote:Your absolutist claims about state vs federal power confuses me. We already had this war 150 years ago. Do you think it's time for another?
Unnecessary. That's what the 10th amendment is for. Which, by the way, is irrelevant to slavery which is obviously the antithesis of freedom. So states rights is not advocating slavery if that's where you're going.
I'm sure some counties in California have some pretty major issues with the state. Should they make their own state?
Where in the constitution is this permissable? But yes, in many ways counties already operate indepedently of others within each state with their own rules. As it should be. How many dry counties are there within some states? Counties where you can smoke indoors at a business but not in others?
I totally agree that there should be a freedom for schools to choose their curriculum, but we are talking right now about federally funded public schools, that's the way it is right now and there should be requirements that you can't just teach children that 1+1=3 just because the community decreed it.
![noclue :noclue:](./images/smilies/confused-smiley-013.gif)
You can go crazy in the private schools if you wish, but not public.
Right. Which is why we need to end the DOE. And stop making me pay for schools if I have no intention of utilizing it. Let private schools compete for students and let the states/counties decide if they need to offer a free/public option.