* * * * *
                                        
     Another look at Federalism—you know, how our government was originally
                                   designed?
                                        
> And when the Fed's ban sex toys? Where do you go then? Sure, it's nice when
> the Feds enforce the laws you like, but what do you do when they enforce
> those you don't?
> 
> It's true that, left to their own devices, some states are going to choose
> some laws that are more restrictive than the laws Feds might enforce. For
> example, I think CA (California) would have much more restrictive gun laws.
> Many Southern states would probably ban abortion.
> 
> However, it's much easier to reform and escape state law than it is to
> escape or reform Federal laws.
> 
> If we had a more federal system, marijuana would be completely legal in
> many states, and perhaps harder drugs as well. You might be able to buy a
> silencer without a FFA license in others.
> 
> Advocates of liberty would also be able to point to real life examples of
> American communities that are working just fine, despite the legalization
> of drugs/machine guns/prostitutes, instead of hypothetical examples, or
> distant foreign experiments that most people will never see.
> 
> In a more federal system, states would also have to compete for people more
> fiercely. Want high tech/bio tech businesses to locate in your state? Anti-
> abortion, anti-gay statutes are going to be a big turnoff to the employees
> (and hence, the employers) of such companies.
> 
> People would be more free to choose which legal regime most closely matched
> their preferences. If you wanted to live where abortion was legal, live in
> CA. If you wanted to shoot machine guns, choose WY (Wyoming) or ID (Idaho).
> Want to do both, move to NH (New Hampshire).
> 
> Compare that to what you would have to do to escape oppressive federal
> laws. One route would be to move to a completely new country, which would
> require you to leave behind friends, family, and business contacts. You
> would also have to surmount language, cultural, and legal barriers to
> immigration.
> 
> Or, you could spend decades waging a campaign to reform the law at the
> federal level. This would probably require millions of dollars, and the
> cooperation of thousands of people to wage, with no guarantee that you
> would ultimately succeed.
> 
> A more federal system might not mean a more libertarian society on a given
> issue, in a given state. But overall, I think it would result in greater
> practical freedom for those who want it.
> 

“comm ent [1]” about States' Rights & Alabama sex toys [2] at Flutterby [3]

I quote in full, since there's a better chance that the person I want to read
this will read this.

[1] http://www.flutterby.com/archives/comments/10557.html#artid_35557
[2] http://www.flutterby.com/archives/comments/10557.html
[3] http://www.flutterby.com/

Email Sean Conner at sean@conman.org

.