Re: Federalism

In Craig's post Federalism. He discusses the historical support for how the founding fathers expected Federalism to prevent the despotic advance of government. I'd like to bring that discussion into the present, if I may. Many 'hot-button' issues of today seem to derive their longevity not to mention their vitality from the idea that if 'our side' doesn't win, we'll have to allow (or prohibit depending on which side you support) something we feel is 'wrong'. Gay-marriage and abortion are two such issues. If you are part of the majority that supports a particular issue, you might fear or at least resent a minority wanting to change the status-quo. Federalism is a double-edged sword. It allows those States who want to do something different to do so without encroaching on all other States. The downside to this is that a State you don't live in might allow something which you feel is morally wrong. Look at Nevada and gambling. If you are morally opposed to gambling than you may feel that it is your duty to prevent citizens of some other states from being allowed to legal sinful behavior.

In getting away from Federalism, we lose the tools that allow people to live in places that they feel they have a say in how it is run and deciding what behavior is acceptable. Tolerance as a political principle.