Q8: Men in Black

"Assume there are only two states, with equal populations of 100 each. Assume further that 70% of State A, and only 40% of State B wish to outlaw smoking in public buildings. The others are opposed. If the decision is made on a national basis by a majority rule, 110 people will be pleased, and 90 displeased. If a separate decision is made by majorities in each state, 130 will be pleased, and only 70 displeased. The level of satisfaction will be still greater if some smokers in State A decide to move to State B, and some anti-smokers in State B move to State A.

State Power also allows for societal solutions best suited to satisfy a given locality and permits experimentation with different public policy initiatives."

This power of self-determination or self-government for the states is a great opportunity for everyone. In a way individual and civil liberties have flourished because of this.

But this is a double-edged sword - because this also empowers states to authorise and endorse policies generally considered to be against the moral grain. (For instance, Massachusetts toying with the idea of making same-sex marriages legal.) So how do you propose a balance to be drawn between the states' self-directing powers and their decisions in matters in the light of values and morals?

Ge: If states are truly autonomous, then we might see weird stuff like prostitution being legal in Nevada.
Joe: States’ rights – founding block of our nation.
Jason: It has nothing to do with morality.
Joe: Each administration makes the federal govt bigger.
Jn: If one state recognizes (say, gay marriage), then do all states have to recognize it?
Val: If gay marriage is legal in one state, and a couple moves to another state, then all those issues that relate to marriage and legal ramifications just got transferred to that new state.
Jason: It’s a question of laws and Const. not morals.
Kevin: Your Q makes it sound like the federal govt is better at making moral decisions.
[discussion on if something needs to be changed/added, make an Amendment]
Joe: Does marriage belong in the Constitution? I don’t think so.
Jn: I don’t think so either.
Kevin: If it’s not in the Const, then how are standards established? By the judges’ whim?
[tangential discussion about marrying goats by Joe]
Joe: The trend is toward gay marriage, and it will happen somehow.
[tangential discussion about possibility of gay marriage in the future as being accepted widely]