|
there's nothing particularly "scary" about it, cimmaron. the arguments advanced to get to that position, however, simply don't seem to me to hold up---or even to make sense. i can understand an aesthetic preference for states having more power because they're physically closer to you and so appear to be more responsive. i could even see a political case that one could make for it--but not a constitutional one.
don't get me wrong, either--i'm no fan of capitalism and certainly not of the existing american version of it, nor of it's pseudo-democracy in which the polity is politically free one day every two years, four years or six and spends the rest of the time being consumers and pretending that their ability to buy shit is the same as political freedom.
but arguing for states as over against federal administrative authority in itself seems little more to me than a shell game--you move the same problems level to level as if that resolves anything.
and like i said, the constitutional arguments for doing that seem to me silly.
not scary.
silly.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|