So the US is a Federal Republic. One country made up of individual states, each with its own rights independent of the Federal government. And we always hear “states rights” as a tool for conservatives to impose their ideology. But isn’t this idea pretty weak to useless nowadays? I can understand say a hundred years ago a majority of people were born, raised, and died within a single state, possibly even a single city. And in that case each state might develop its own “personality” as far as laws, morality, etc. goes.
But in modern society it seems, and maybe someone has some data somewhere, that people are far more likely to NOT be born/raised/die in the same state. If this is the case, then I would think individual states have lost their individual personality (other than what might be maintained artificially for tourist purposes). And therefore this idea of states rights is antiquated and really kept alive artificially.
So the US is a Federal Republic. One country made up of individual states, each with its own rights independent of the Federal government. And we always hear "states rights" as a tool for conservatives to impose their ideology. But isn't this idea pretty weak to useless nowadays? I can understand say a hundred years ago a majority of people were born, raised, and died within a single state, possibly even a single city. And in that case each state might develop its own "personality" as far as laws, morality, etc. goes. But in modern society it seems, and maybe someone has some data somewhere, that people are far more likely to NOT be born/raised/die in the same state. If this is the case, then I would think individual states have lost their individual personality (other than what might be maintained artificially for tourist purposes). And therefore this idea of states rights is antiquated and really kept alive artificially.It is, but just try to get it changed. Lois
So the US is a Federal Republic. One country made up of individual states, each with its own rights independent of the Federal government. And we always hear "states rights" as a tool for conservatives to impose their ideology. But isn't this idea pretty weak to useless nowadays? I can understand say a hundred years ago a majority of people were born, raised, and died within a single state, possibly even a single city. And in that case each state might develop its own "personality" as far as laws, morality, etc. goes. But in modern society it seems, and maybe someone has some data somewhere, that people are far more likely to NOT be born/raised/die in the same state. If this is the case, then I would think individual states have lost their individual personality (other than what might be maintained artificially for tourist purposes). And therefore this idea of states rights is antiquated and really kept alive artificially.Cuthbert I agree for the most part but the States Rights doctrine may have some utility even today. While we are a single nation few would deny that there are significant differences in the politics and beliefs of people in different regions. All you have to do is look at the "Red States/ Blue States" map on election days to see how dramatically different we can be. Allowing states to have some governance over their own laws and the lives of their citizens allows an outlet to express those differences without having to resort to a national revolt or a civil war. Obviously there have to be important limits to states rights, but I think there is still a place and a purpose for states rights if less so than in the past.
Marijuana legalization is (or could be if the Feds would truly butt out) an example of how some states can try something out and the other states can observe the pitfalls and benefits.
OTOH, individual states should not be allowed to violate the US Constitutional rights of any of their citizens.
Marijuana legalization is (or could be if the Feds would truly butt out) an example of how some states can try something out and the other states can observe the pitfalls and benefits. OTOH, individual states should not be allowed to violate the US Constitutional rights of any of their citizens.You are correct Tim. SCOTUS has actually held that most of the boll of rights is applicable to states ( prior to the 20th century this was not the case), but you bring up a good example of why States Rights is still an useful concept. Another example is gay rights and marriage equality. If we had to pass a law as a nation permitting gay marriage it might never have happened. The fact that individual states could permit gay marriage allowed the idea to gain momentum and gradually spread to other states in a way we may not have been able to accomplish if we had to convince the entire country first.
:lol: You’re almost right in calling the US as it is, a “fiction”
According to this - http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Movers-and-Stayers.pdf most Americans stay near where they grew up.
At any rate, the difference between regional peoples will increase as the US falls from its first world status, and that’s a beautiful thing.
:lol: You're almost right in calling the US as it is, a "fiction" According to this - http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Movers-and-Stayers.pdf most Americans stay near where they grew up. At any rate, the difference between regional peoples will increase as the US falls from its first world status, and that's a beautiful thing.I was suspicious of your conclusion that regional differences would increase at first because 'common sense' would seem to indicate that in the age of the automobile and relatively cheap airfares we would be far more mobile and willing to move further from family than we were years ago. But the graph on page three of the pew research document you linked to clearly shows a dramatic drop in mobility especially since the 60's. Unfortunately they don't really speculate on the reason for this counter intuitive finding. I did find an interesting Newsweek article on the phenomena that discusses it though. http://www.newsweek.com/localism-fewer-americans-are-relocating-81085 Not sure though that I agree with your conclusion that we will become more different simply because we move less. We are more connected and a more homogenized society in many ways than we ever were and that may offset much of the effects of a less mobile population or maybe not. Its hard to know. I don't see any reason to think this would result in a fall from our first world status though or why that would be something to celebrate.
I was born in Texas, have lived here all of my life, and will probably die in Texas. I remember (the history of) not only the Alamo, but Goliad and San Jacinto, also. But my political orientation is at odds with most Texans. I could be an outlier, in this regards, but am evidence that staying where you grow up, does not automatically, result in taking on and persisting with the prevailing regional orientation.
:lol: You're almost right in calling the US as it is, a "fiction" According to this - http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Movers-and-Stayers.pdf most Americans stay near where they grew up. At any rate, the difference between regional peoples will increase as the US falls from its first world status, and that's a beautiful thing.I was suspicious of your conclusion that regional differences would increase at first because 'common sense' would seem to indicate that in the age of the automobile and relatively cheap airfares we would be far more mobile and willing to move further from family than we were years ago. But the graph on page three of the pew research document you linked to clearly shows a dramatic drop in mobility especially since the 60's. Unfortunately they don't really speculate on the reason for this counter intuitive finding. I did find an interesting Newsweek article on the phenomena that discusses it though. http://www.newsweek.com/localism-fewer-americans-are-relocating-81085 Not sure though that I agree with your conclusion that we will become more different simply because we move less. We are more connected and a more homogenized society in many ways than we ever were and that may offset much of the effects of a less mobile population or maybe not. Its hard to know. I don't see any reason to think this would result in a fall from our first world status though or why that would be something to celebrate.Ultimately, healthy people like familiarity and close ties with those like themselves. The Corporatization of America, which has been the norm since WW2 ended, is dying out for economic reasons. The problems caused by the corporate culture remain of course, but people don't like the corporate culture anymore. And they will take something less "modern" over it. The so called car culture of the US is declining because young people can't afford it- http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/millennials-motion http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/01/social-media-driving-millennials/2898093/ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/report-finds-americans-are-driving-less-led-by-youth.html?_r=0 This means the suburbs are dying (because suburban life relies on car ownership) and and a return to urban or semi-urban communities in the future.
Not sure though that I agree with your conclusion that we will become more different simply because we move less. We are more connected and a more homogenized society in many ways than we ever were and that may offset much of the effects of a less mobile population or maybe not. Its hard to know. I don't see any reason to think this would result in a fall from our first world status though or why that would be something to celebrate.Moving less means cultural strength increases, basically. Solidarity through experience. And blood. Our first world status will fall because of the immigration and accommodation of the brown (and black) people.
:lol: You're almost right in calling the US as it is, a "fiction" Our first world status will fall because of the immigration and accommodation of the brown (and black) people.It will fail because of the acceptance, tolerance and promotion of racism and sexism, which is inherent in all races. Lois
MidAtlantic, some of your social/political views could make, even Fox News aficionados blush with embarrassment (though they might secretly be tittering in glee).
Moving less means cultural strength increases, basically. Solidarity through experience. And blood.Nonsense. You can quote all the surveys you want, but in my personal experience (of more than 60 years) there has been a continuous increase in mobility and a decrease in people remaining in the same region, much less state. The only people who fit the description of less mobile and who have remained close to home in my area are the Amish. Even my Amish neighbors use cellphones. Each state will continue to have a population of "Rednecks" (we call them "Hoosiers" in Indiana), but when you add the multiple means of communication (cellphones, Internet, etc.), you have to be downright backward to avoid exposure to other cultures, including those scary brown (and black) ones.