States Rights

The tension between the individual states and the federal government, over who has authority over what aspects of society, has existed since the constitution was ratified.  The short version is that the states have constantly losing ground to the expanding federal government, ever since states rights reached their peak at the signing of the tenth amendment.  Traditionally Republicans have favored maintaining as much authority at the state level as possible, while Democrats have been in favor of shifting as much of that authority to the federal government as possible.

Now that there is a Republican president, we hear less about states rights, because neither side of the aisle benefits as much from advancing their traditional position.  But this week, we have seen a big shift in how the Democrats are approaching that issue, with two separate compacts being agreed to by multiple states, to work together outside of the federal government, to coordinate the re-opening of America as the corona virus lock-down restrictions get lifted.  This is in direct defiance of the President's assertion that he has the authority to determine when the lock-downs get lifted.  I was originally encouraged by this conflict between the states and the federal government, as it weakens the overall power of government (think checks and balances) and would lead to getting things open sooner.

I favor easing the restrictions progressively over time, but starting immediately, since the peak has passed.  And two entities competing over who has authority creates a race for one of them to pick a date that the other has to respond to.  If someone throws out May 31st, it will be hard for the other to extend past that, putting them in a weak position, but they could push it forward, so that it will be visible that they were the one responsible for re-opening the economy.  This probably leads to an earlier release than otherwise would have happened.  I still think that is possible, but most of the talk is still about things over a month out, which I think is ridiculous.  It is unnecessary and unsustainable, both economically, and politically.  There will be a rebellion before then, and rightfully so.  And the economic damage increases at an exponential rate over time, just like the virus did.

The longer the lock-downs are in place, the more force will be required to maintain them, especially as it becomes more obvious that they are not necessary.  That application of force is the main problem, both it its implementation, and in the precedents that is sets.  We are already seeing all sorts of abuses of power that escalate as the situation deteriorates, and those are more concerning to me than the virus ever was.  I would prefer to risk losing 2% of our population, to losing a higher percentage of our freedom.  There are all sorts of ways to illustrate that freedom is more valuable than life, but in this context, the best one might be to point out that even the most oppressed beggar in Asia has life, but very few of earth's inhabitants have freedom.  And scarcity is one measure of value.  That scarcity will only increase, based on the direction we are headed, further increasing the value of the freedoms we have.