Not sure about the confusion

I do find it immoral (or, if you prefer, unfair) that a large chunk of the population pays nothing at all into our society. There are many people who have no stake in our society except in what it gives them. They have given nothing. They only consume and take advantage of the freedoms and entitlements earned for them by their ancestors and their peers. It's their right under our system. I benefit from the current system, paying little or no income taxes each year; I'll likely do even better under an Obama administration. But that doesn't make it right.

I'm not proposing an absolute flat tax rate; below a certain point, every dollar really does count, and above a certain point, it gets to be rather academic. But If I did find a progressive tax to be intrinsically unfair, why wouldn't I vote for the candidate/party who proposes a less unfair scheme (by my definition)? Did you think I was a Republican?

I can't read your mind. All you said was "civil rights." You could have been talking about just about anything, and I don't read the boards any more so you'll have to excuse me if I'm not familiar with your favored causes. I won't apologize for not intuiting that you were referring to same-sex marriage.

With the notable exception of the CA proposition you linked to, all of those examples have something in common--they are historical, in most cases, because the federal government stepped in. I'm going to quote myself here, because you apparently missed it the first time [emphasis added]:

I'm not by any means an absolute states rightist; as a society, we have come to find additional essential liberties not guaranteed in the original Constitution, whose necessity was such that the federal government had to impose their enforcement upon the states. Many of those are codified in amendments to that same document. What does this prove? By and large, the system works, if slowly and painfully.

The federal government can and does step in to correct abuses at the state level. The solution to current woes is not to cripple the states' ability to self-govern.

The same-sex marriage issue, interestingly enough, may actually be a case where the federal government could make a case for jurisdiction, since all states have to honor marriages made in any other state. Even should it pass, the states are bound by law to respect those marriages which occur in other states.

Sig

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options