Well yes, I'll agree with that and was actually considering showing it as an exception, but I'm pretty sure no one is going to be opposed to a state controlling this aspect. Also we're talking about science.
What is more likely to fuck up science in this case? The federal government, which I'm going to assume has more contact with 'concerned officials' (scientists, etc.) or a state with a strong creationist/'alternative medicine'/whatever lobby?If the federal government makes a stupid modification, the whole nation suffers.
Maybe if states rights wasn't such an idealistic concept I wouldn't have to undermine it.Creative logical fallacy, there... maybe if you blame states rights for enough other things, you'll undermine this one.
Also, a state or the state makes little difference except in efficiency and foot-dragging. Look at Quebec, a province in Canada which actually has some legitimacy towards their separatist arguments and is bigger than I'm going to assume most US states. The whole "WE SHALL FREE OURSELVES FROM YOUR TYRANNYYYYYYY!!!!" falls flat when people realize it wouldn't last long as an independent state.
Not relevant, but lets see what the USSR did. The USSR developed the economies of each SSR to an extent that they could viably declare independence. That is why every single SSR that was in the USSR came out as a fully independent state in 1991. (Granted, I know a Republic isn't the same as if the USSR was a bunch of huge states)
Bookmarks