States Rights: What do you think?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That still wasn't your challenge.

Your challenge was that no philosopher used it since 1974. You're wrong.

Yes, it was. Read through the posts.

I read the posts. Your claim was that no "contemporary" philosopher (whatever the fuck that means) used it since 1974.

I'm telling you philosophers have kept on using it since 1974, and I cited two to challenge your claim.

Now you're saying "oh but they are heterodox philosophers"; that doesn't change the fact they've used it.

Ergo, you're wrong.

[Uelvan]

The whole "state's right supercede federal rights" has been tried before, it was called. The Articles of Confederation, it was a total failure.

Ironically it was the North who first argued states right. They argued a state had the right to ban slavery, so when the Southerners were moving north with all their property they could not keep their slaves.

[Olerand]

I'm fairly sure the burden of proof falls onto you, anyway.

None of these things are necessary for a state to be legitimate. I don't understand the kink all of you have with the social contract.

Falls on me to what? Show me a public intellectual in France that refutes the social contract. I can't show you a philosopher here, or in most other places in Europe, defending it as there is the perception it does not need defending. It is a fait accompli, it simply is.

They most certainly are. A State's legitimacy comes from the people it governs. We have reached a point in our philosophical and political development that that legitimacy has been solidified into explicit, or implicit, documents and agreements.

[Arkolon]

Yes, it was. Read through the posts.

I read the posts. Your claim was that no "contemporary" philosopher (whatever the fuck that means) used it since 1974.

I'm telling you philosophers have kept on using it since 1974, and I cited two to challenge your claim.

Now you're saying "oh but they are heterodox philosophers"; that doesn't change the fact they've used it.

Ergo, you're wrong.

So I was wrong that absolutely no philosopher has used social contract theory since 1974, but once 14 years, and another 29, after. Say I conceded this, yet now posited that no mainstream philosopher has used social contract theory since 1974?

[Myrensis]

I don't need to show the Federal government does it more often. I just need to show it is just as bad (as you say before trying to shift).
This is rather plainly obvious. The Federal government has been just as (if not more) destructive to individual rights voting rights (we'll keep it there since that's the one under discussion for the last few posts) as the states themselves. There exist both instances wherein the Federal government expanded them (the Civil Rights Act) alongside of those where states did so (the instances referred to above, done before Federal action on the matter). There exist instances wherein states restricted them (Black Codes, etc.), alongside instances wherein the Federal government did so (nonrecognition of Indians in the late 1800s, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Naturalization act of 1790, etc.).

And yet the nationwide end of slavery came from the Federal government.
The end of Jim Crow nationwide came from the Federal government.
The end of anti-miscegenation nationwide came from the Federal Government
The female vote nationwide came from the Federal Government.
It's Federal courts that are currently knocking down State bans on gay marriage nationwide

The Federal Government is certainly capable of being wrong, but when it's right, it's right for everybody.

Though it's amusing how many instances of the Federal Government getting it wrong were driven by the same people who turned around and cried 'State's Rights' when they couldn't get their way anymore.

[Kelinfort]

Interracial marriage. Then again, 1967 wasn't that long ago

Uh-huh. Didn't someone say "that's what the Supreme Court is for" just a couple pages ago?

If you read my first post in this thread, you would see I called for a balance between the two, not supremacy of either-or. That minimises potential tyranny in the best manner possible.

[Anglo-California]

States do have legitimate functions and rights independent of the federal government, but in the end, the federal government and Constitution trump all.

[The Cobalt Sky]

I don't need to show the Federal government does it more often. I just need to show it is just as bad (as you say before trying to shift).
This is rather plainly obvious. The Federal government has been just as (if not more) destructive to individual rights voting rights (we'll keep it there since that's the one under discussion for the last few posts) as the states themselves. There exist both instances wherein the Federal government expanded them (the Civil Rights Act) alongside of those where states did so (the instances referred to above, done before Federal action on the matter). There exist instances wherein states restricted them (Black Codes, etc.), alongside instances wherein the Federal government did so (nonrecognition of Indians in the late 1800s, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Naturalization act of 1790, etc.).

And yet the nationwide end of slavery came from the Federal government.
The end of Jim Crow nationwide came from the Federal government.
The end of anti-miscegenation nationwide came from the Federal Government
The female vote nationwide came from the Federal Government.

The Federal Government is certainly capable of being wrong, but when it's right, it's right for everybody.

Though it's amusing how many instances of the Federal Government getting it wrong were driven by the same people who turned around and cried 'State's Rights' when they couldn't get their way anymore.

Interesting...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I read the posts. Your claim was that no "contemporary" philosopher (whatever the fuck that means) used it since 1974.

I'm telling you philosophers have kept on using it since 1974, and I cited two to challenge your claim.

Now you're saying "oh but they are heterodox philosophers"; that doesn't change the fact they've used it.

Ergo, you're wrong.

So I was wrong that absolutely no philosopher has used social contract theory since 1974, but once 14 years, and another 29, after. Say I conceded this, yet now posited that no mainstream philosopher has used social contract theory since 1974?

That's a different argument, however, let me ask, what have modern mainstream philosophers shifted towards if it isn't the social contract or a variation?

[Arkolon]

I'm fairly sure the burden of proof falls onto you, anyway.

None of these things are necessary for a state to be legitimate. I don't understand the kink all of you have with the social contract.

Falls on me to what? Show me a public intellectual in France that refutes the social contract. I can't show you a philosopher here, or in most other places in Europe, defending it as there is the perception it does not need defending. It is a fait accompli, it simply is.

Let's turn this on its head:

"I can't show you any French philosopher that refutes the social contract because a disregard for the social contract is a fait accompli."

I hope you realise what you're doing now.

They most certainly are.

No, it really isn't. The state's legitimacy is not derived from any fictitious piece of paper. Have this: from a state of nature, from where did the social contract appear? The state isn't a timeless mechanism, so, was the social contract just a human invention? And, if this is the case, how can you base philosophy off a human invention?

legitimacy has been solidified into explicit, or implicit, documents and agreements.

Then it's not a very good model for universal legitimacy by all, is it?

[Arkolon]

So I was wrong that absolutely no philosopher has used social contract theory since 1974, but once 14 years, and another 29, after. Say I conceded this, yet now posited that no mainstream philosopher has used social contract theory since 1974?

That's a different argument, however, let me ask, what have modern mainstream philosophers shifted towards if it isn't the social contract?

The state's existence does not contravene any major set of ethics. The mechanisms and consequences by which it is supported, however, do break some philosophies' rules, but my other thread on the synthesis did remedy this. The state's existence does not need to be justified because nothing about it is unjustifiable; its operations, however, might be. It depends on which ideologue you ask.

[Myrensis]

And yet the nationwide end of slavery came from the Federal government.
The end of Jim Crow nationwide came from the Federal government.
The end of anti-miscegenation nationwide came from the Federal Government
The female vote nationwide came from the Federal Government.

The Federal Government is certainly capable of being wrong, but when it's right, it's right for everybody.

Though it's amusing how many instances of the Federal Government getting it wrong were driven by the same people who turned around and cried 'State's Rights' when they couldn't get their way anymore.

Interesting...

It's a proud and longstanding tradition of 'State's Rights' advocates. As long as they have power in the Federal Government the States can sit down, shut up, and do what they're told. It's only when they're out of power that all the wailing about 'tyranny' and 'State's Rights!' and 'small government!' starts.

[Olerand]

Let's turn this on its head:

"I can't show you any French philosopher that refutes the social contract because a disregard for the social contract is a fait accompli."

I hope you realise what you're doing now.

No, it really isn't. The state's legitimacy is not derived from any fictitious piece of paper. Have this: from a state of nature, from where did the social contract appear? The state isn't a timeless mechanism, so, was the social contract just a human invention? And, if this is the case, how can you base philosophy off a human invention?

Then it's not a very good model for universal legitimacy by all, is it?

I think you're trying to be clever, but I can't ascertain how.
Are there physicists still defending the basic concept of gravity? Are there those still questioning the basic concept of gravity? No. (As relative to the Earth)
It is, everyone has moved on.
No one defends what is, they take it for granted.

Again, I ask for a public intellectual in France, or Europe, who has refuted the social contract. And I ask, what else is there for them then?

I explicitly said it is derived from the people it governs. The papers are for show, as proof of legitimacy. They mean nothing if the consent is lost.

All social concepts, the State, society, legitimacy, rights, duties, everything, are human inventions.
There are no natural philosophies, all philosophies, including ones that argue based on "natural" arguments, and the very premise and concept of "philosophy", are human inventions.
I argue for human inventions, backed by human inventions.

The only things that are natural are the laws of nature. And unless if you want to discuss physics/biology/chemistry and their variations, they have no grounds here.

By all? It's the model we have. The model we have adopted. Until someone can come up with a better one, this model is what we have.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That's a different argument, however, let me ask, what have modern mainstream philosophers shifted towards if it isn't the social contract?

The state's existence does not contravene any major set of ethics. The mechanisms and consequences by which it is supported, however, do break some philosophies' rules, but my other thread on the synthesis did remedy this. The state's existence does not need to be justified because nothing about it is unjustifiable; its operations, however, might be. It depends on which ideologue you ask.

So, according to modern theory the state is just the state because the state says so?

[Arkolon]

The state's existence does not contravene any major set of ethics. The mechanisms and consequences by which it is supported, however, do break some philosophies' rules, but my other thread on the synthesis did remedy this. The state's existence does not need to be justified because nothing about it is unjustifiable; its operations, however, might be. It depends on which ideologue you ask.

So, according to modern theory the state is just the state because the state says so?

According to modern theory the state is just the state because it fits all criteria to be a state. Which hypothetical position are you adopting when you ask this question?

[Occupied Deutschland]

I don't need to show the Federal government does it more often. I just need to show it is just as bad (as you say before trying to shift).
This is rather plainly obvious. The Federal government has been just as (if not more) destructive to individual rights voting rights (we'll keep it there since that's the one under discussion for the last few posts) as the states themselves. There exist both instances wherein the Federal government expanded them (the Civil Rights Act) alongside of those where states did so (the instances referred to above, done before Federal action on the matter). There exist instances wherein states restricted them (Black Codes, etc.), alongside instances wherein the Federal government did so (nonrecognition of Indians in the late 1800s, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Naturalization act of 1790, etc.).

And yet the nationwide end of slavery came from the Federal government.
The end of Jim Crow nationwide came from the Federal government.
The end of anti-miscegenation nationwide came from the Federal Government
The female vote nationwide came from the Federal Government.

The Federal Government is certainly capable of being wrong, but when it's right, it's right for everybody.

Though it's amusing how many instances of the Federal Government getting it wrong were driven by the same people who turned around and cried 'State's Rights' when they couldn't get their way anymore.

You seem to be missing the flipside of that coin. That being: When it's wrong, it's wrong for everybody.

Hence why the Fugitive Slave Act, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Non-recognition of Indians as citizens for nearly 150 YEARS (in 1924 Yes, Virginia, more than fifty years after the passage of the fourteenth Amendment), the various compromises and deals expanding and protecting slavery, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the inclusion of Japanese under that act, are so fucked up (Which is focusing on voting-rights centric cases only, we could bring up DOMA and numerous other items if we expand this to general civil rights discussion, but most of this is focused on voting so I've been trying to take that alone as much as I can).

Though you're entirely correct in the latter part. This has been essentially the entirety of my point. The state-federal dynamic is significantly more complex than the 'Feds=good states=bad' manner it was presented, because the federal decisions on the matter also are direct results of majority state opinion on the matters in question (hence why the federal action expanding rights always followed a number of state decisions doing so in virtually all cases, though the flipside of that may be true as well there are also examples of it being contravened (Indians, most eggregiously in this case)).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So, according to modern theory the state is just the state because the state says so?

According to modern theory the state is just the state because it fits all criteria to be a state. Which hypothetical position are you adopting when you ask this question?

None.

Also, what is the criteria to be a state?

[The Cobalt Sky]

Interesting...

It's a proud and longstanding tradition of 'State's Rights' advocates. As long as they have power in the Federal Government the States can sit down, shut up, and do what they're told. It's only when they're out of power that all the wailing about 'tyranny' and 'State's Rights!' and 'small government!' starts.

Hmmm... This clarifies a lot, and expands the number of people I labeled as hypocrates... Thank you!

[Arkolon]

According to modern theory the state is just the state because it fits all criteria to be a state. Which hypothetical position are you adopting when you ask this question?

None.

Also, what is the criteria to be a state?

A monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, (x).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

None.

Also, what is the criteria to be a state?

A monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, (x).

I have a bit of an issue with Weber since the state derives its power from the governed, not from the state itself.

[Olerand]

A monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, (x).

I have a bit of an issue with Weber since the state derives its power from the governed, not from the state itself.

There are multiple "thoughts" in philosophy, not just one. I don't agree with Weber either.

Philosophy is a social construct, therefore, there is/can be no "right" answer.

[Napkiraly]

A monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, (x).

I have a bit of an issue with Weber since the state derives its power from the governed, not from the state itself.

Depends on the state, though generally the more legitimate the state is viewed the stronger it is.

[Arkolon]

A monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, (x).

I have a bit of an issue with Weber since the state derives its power from the governed, not from the state itself.

How could a state derive its power from a state?

[Napkiraly]

I have a bit of an issue with Weber since the state derives its power from the governed, not from the state itself.

How could a state derive its power from a state?

I think it's more of the idea of the state being a completely separate entity from society, etc. It's own actor as it were.

[Korintar]

Let's make this clear, the Southern states did not care one bit about states' rights and the North didn't really care about slavery. It is kind of a self projection in a way. The South was terrified about the prospect of abolitionists coming to power and undermining the economic basis of Southern feudal society- race based slavery. That is why the South rebelled, they were willing to die for slavery, not for states' rights. If they really cared about states' rights, they would've never attacked the states that chose to remain neutral during the Civil War. As for the North, most did not care about slavery. Even with the slavery states out of the Union, emancipation was a hard sell even in the non-slaveholding North, which had its own prejudices and issues with racism and bigotry. Their primary concern was keeping the Union together, full stop.

slavery was their net worth. it was their MONEY.

money is what America is all about. if they hadn't seceded its hard for me to imagine that the north would ever have made the push to start a war over slavery--too expensive and too much money to lose.

Agreed, for better or for worse, that is what America is all about. Preserving the wealth and prestige of the elites.