Should liberals embrace states rights?

States rights. The very phrase has so many negative connotations outside of the DSA (Dumb States of America) - see previous post. In the first half of the history of the United States of America, states rights was an excuse to justify and maintain slavery, the south's peculiar institution. In the second half of our history states rights has been an excuse to justify and maintain second class citizenship for blacks and for other backward policies. The U.S. constitution is so flawed in the process for electing a president and in the legislature by having a senate in which California with 68 times more people has the same representation as Wyoming, it's no wonder that our policies are perverted. These inequities cannot be changed without the consent of the beneficiaries of those same inequities. The Founding Fathers were no better than what we have today. What a mess they created. And we still had a civil war. And the civil war didn't even result in addressing secession, the act which triggered it. Three constitutional amendments as a result of the civil war and none dealt with secession. Without a constitutional convention to make fundamental changes there is no way that this system will improve. So, if you can't beat them, join them. Liberals should stop worrying about Mississippi mistreating its citizens. Short of lynchings, Mississippi is unlikely to do anything really terrible with the universal spotlight of the world wide web. If needed, the feds can step in, like in the old days, the 1960s. Besides, people can vote with their feet. That's the phrase that Reagan popularized. Aren't they already doing that, migrating towards the coasts? Isn't that why old people move to Florida, Arizona and Nevada? Oops, real estate values collapsed in those states. Isn't it why retired LA cops move to Idaho? Liberals, stop cringing and embrace states rights. Change the dynamic and make the nuts cringe. Dismantle federal programs and let each state set policy that is not by its nature federal, such as national defense. When the same people get flooded out of their homes every ten years or so because they refuse to move out of Mississippi River flood zones, their state government, not the federal government, will be responsible for rebuilding their homes. Good luck there. And when a city that is built below sea level gets flooded, Louisiana will decide whether New Orleans is such a good idea after all. You want universal health care? Move to New York or California. You want to carry a concealed weapon? Move to Montana or Idaho. You don't want all that government regulation like brakes on cars? Move to South Carolina. Oh, and make each state pay for its stretch of interstate highway. Let's see how NASCAR nation likes that. Why should someone in New York City who does not own a car pay for interstate highways? States rights. Cool.