Why the States’ Rights Philosophy Limits Opportunities For the Disadvantaged

Every time I hear a politician or person I talk to advocating “States’ Rights,” I cringe or react in some other unfavorable way. Aside from the inexcusable advocacy of the philosophy of allowing states to have more control subscribed to by the likes of George C. Wallace (governor of Alabama from 1963 to 1967), who famously believed states should determine themselves whether racial integration should take place, institutionalization of this position can limit opportunities of low income individuals in less obvious and egregious ways.

The deprivation of opportunity stems from the fact that people are born involuntarily in any given state. African-Americans didn’t choose to be born in Alabama during segregation, or in the age of slavery in the United States. The most obvious solution to living in a state one is dissatisfied with is simply to relocate to another one. For those of us with the means to do so, it can become a matter of the disruption of stability in employment, for example. For those with the means to barely pay their bills every month, for whatever reasons, the prospect of relocating to a more favorable state is most likely not possible.

Living within a version of the United States with more powerful states and a less influential federal government, which many conservatives and libertarians seem to desire, only those with the financial means to choose a state where laws are more accommodating are able to relocate to those states. Under this system, the laws controlling federal versus state powers favor only the middle-middle, upper-middle, and of course upper classes. People who are unemployed, disabled and elderly who are not able to receive federal benefits, and are denied state-level benefits are therefore unable to improve their lives through their own means.

Although the states’ rights philosophy, if used to limit state-level spending on benefits, which conservatives and libertarians seem to favor, allows for more local influence of a given populace to theoretically have more control over the laws in their own territory, what’s the societal price which must be paid to allow for this control? And more importantly, how much more influence does a real individual (not a corporation) have over anything within our current voting process, especially considering the results of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision?

Under a conservative and/or libertarian-favored system, more “local” control (or lack of local government control or regulation) is asserted, and there is less regulation of corporations. There would nothing to stop (aside from politicians in power and individuals able to organize local referendums and propositions, where able) corporations and more wealthy individuals from having more influence than they currently do. Even within the current system, where some regulations on business institutions are in place, some would argue those with more wealth, and therefore access to more education, resources and opportunities, have too much power. Imagine a society, however limited by area, where those people would have even more. Under a system of “more freedom,” the financially stronger are favored over everyone else.

Conservatives and libertarians argue against the federal government’s ability to tax, and therefore against the federal government’s ability to issue benefits, provide infrastructure, and provide services. Most people can agree the federal government often doesn’t operate as well as we would like, but without it’s power to tax, and the initiatives taken to improve national infrastructure and provide national services, we would all be at the mercy of our municipal and state governments. Without the Supreme Court’s ability to declare state laws limiting the rights of women to obtain abortions under any circumstances unconstitutional, for example, women without the ability to relocate to a state where abortions are readily available would be subject to unwanted pregnancies and abortions without medical supervision, simply because of their fellow citizens' desire decide it should be so.

If a state’s citizens, with all financial power involved in any given state decided through a vote, for example, to disallow the federal government to levy an estate tax, the small top percentage of individuals on the class scale would be favored. If a state decided to collect far less taxes, or decided to abolish welfare programs, those receiving those benefits would be disfavored, and without the means to relocate to a state of their choosing, they would be financially locked in to a state whose policies they disagree with, and whose policies have deprived them of the ability to receive financial assistance in rough times. If a state decided to deregulate businesses and allowed them the “freedom” to discriminate based on race, age, gender and/or sexual orientation, more people would be unemployed at the whim of those with the most power.

The idea of a society where more local decisions can be made seems like a positive idea on the surface, but only in more superficial matters, not those which limit opportunities and financial support for everyone at the behest of providing for “more freedom” for those with the most resources often obtained through birth. The next time you observe advocacy of “States’ Rights,” think about the potential for this philosophy, and the ideal society those advocates which to create and live in.


© 2011
(Draft, Subject To Many Edits)