Posts
Whatever happened to this coveted liberal ideal that America was to be the great melting pot nation where anyone from anywhere could come, live, practice their belief, and no matter what, find a place where they could fit in and be happy. It seems now that liberals only wish to force on everyone that which they believe is right and just.
Case and point: The United States was set up with individual state governments for the sole purpose of diversity among the states. It would be the ideal liberal atmosphere, where people of a certain belief could congregate in one state where the local governments law are to that individuals liking, and at the same time, another individual with polar opposite beliefs can live in another state where the laws are to that persons liking. This was the purpose for the tenth amendment, to ensure that everyone from all corners of the earth could come here and find a governing atmosphere that they like.
Ok, now time for the point. I have just described to you what would seem to be the perfect liberal world. Everyone can believe what they want, and live their life how they choose, no matter what they believe. Now, however, liberals seem to be more and more in favor of sweeping federal legislation which forces their particular beliefs on everyone. A great example of this would be the health care debate. There are a few states out there that already have state run health insurance (forgive me, but I cannot name them all off the top of my head, so sorry if I leave one out.). If an individual believes that state run health care is all that and a bag of chips, they have the god given right to move to Oregon or Massachusetts. I notice people citing the human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as their argument for health insurance entitlement. But notice one thing; it is the pursuit of happiness (i.e. seeking out a state that suits your style of governance) not the forcing of an individual idea of happiness on all the people by the federal government (i.e. passing federal legislation that will force a particular style of governance on all the people in the country).
Under this analysis, it would seem that liberal is a term that no longer applies to those of the left, which is why people are hearing more and more terms like “statist” and “national socialist.” Because if liberals truly do wish to accommodate those with every belief from every corner of the world, they would allow individual states their own style of governance. However, this would mean that people would exist someone that do not believe as they do, and to them, it seems, this is unacceptable.
1 year ago
Good point....I believe it all started with Lincoln and his desire to preserve the union at all costs. That's when the feds started their power grab and tried to kill states rights.
ReplyDeleteActually, that would be one of the only times I would have deemed federal intervention acceptable. Slavery was unconstitutional by the definition of inalienable human rights. Nowadays, however, our federal legislators play too large a role in the everyday lives of people across the country. Such governance should be left to state and local governments. That is why they are there in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSlavery was a side issue....The underlying point regarding slavery was that the slave states wanted the autonomy guaranteed by the 10th amendment. The War for Southern Independence was fought over states rights....slavery was one of several rights they wanted to keep at state level. Hard to second guess history but I suspect that slavery would have gone the way of the flintlock with or without the war.
ReplyDeleteI’d have to agree with you there, as there would have been very little keeping slaves from fleeing to Free states. However, both sides would have wanted federal intervention. The south realized that their slaves would have fled to the north with the promise of freedom. You have to understand that people paid good money for their slaves, and they’d be damned to see them escape to another land where their guaranteed freedom. It would have been the south’s worse nightmare to see this settled at the state level, which is why it ultimately led to war. You’re right, eventually slavery would have gone by the way side regardless; my point was simply in regards to the constitutional classification of rights to all men.
ReplyDelete