Three Arguments

 

 

” Writing for the Tenth Amendment Center, a person finds oneself spending a lot of time and pixels defending the concept of nullification.  These defenses generally take the form of answers to two questions.  Is nullification a legally valid concept?  Is nullification a good idea?  The arguments about whether or not nullification is a good idea can often be split into whether it’s a good idea from a practical sense, and whether it’s a good idea from the philosophical sense.

In this essay, I will address all of those questions.  First, using a single argument, which I believe is conclusive, I will demonstrate that nullification is, indisputably, a valid legal concept under our political system.  Having accomplished that, I will next show that under our foundational principles, nullification is a philosophical necessity.  Finally, I will advance an argument that the use of nullification will lead to an overall healthier society.

Nullification is how the states can increase anti-fragility in our political and economic systems.  Washington wants to increase its own ability to thrive from the unexpected by diminishing ours.  The states can, and should, use nullification to resist that tendency, force decentralization, and decrease our political system’s exposure to catastrophic harm.  Eventually, this country will be exposed to an existential crisis, a black swan – as Taleb terms it.   Maybe in our lifetimes, maybe in our children’s or grandchildren’s.  Exactly when it will happen, no one knows, but it will happen.  When it happens, antifragility will determine the survivors.  If we do nothing to decrease fragility in our political and economic systems, we are in grave danger.  Nullification is the most effective tool to decentralize powers which have been usurped by a recalcitrant federal government. “

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About these ads