R.I.P. TTIP?

[malthaussen]

51. I approach this downthread.

Personally, I live in Philly, which is about as far from LA as one can get and still be in the Lower 48. Arguably, people in California should not be making decisions that affect Philadelphia (and vice-versa), but they do insofar as federal legislation is concerned.

The whole argument about State's Rights is grounded in the philosophy that each state should make its own laws, and that's one reason why 18 is the legal age of consent in California, but it is 16 in Pennsylvania. I suggest that the idea that LA has no business making rules for Philadelphia (or Singapore for LA), is obsolescent and can lead to more trouble than it is worth. It is just because of this concept (and the interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to support it) that North Carolina can forbid transsexuals from using the bathroom, or that various states can disenfranchise entire classes of voter.

The whole point of a Federal system of government is to regulate conduct among quasi-sovereign states (states with a little "s," if you will) while allowing them to handle other issues in their own fashion. The question is, are labor and environmental laws of a stature that they should be executed at the highest level possible, or is some variation reasonable? Given that they affect people in more than one jurisdiction, we could argue the former; OTOH there are certain specific areas in which it is ludicrous for LA and Philadelphia to be making rules for each other.

Of course, the proposed trade agreements want to exploit this, not to validate it, and it is a good argument, IMO, to argue that national sovereignty prevents corporations from reducing environmental and labor laws to the least common denominator (which is, of course, the prospect that has them licking their lips in anticipation). But it is an essentially reactionary response, if the motivation is to secure a higher standard of living for one group of people and not all.

-- Mal