So, in your opinion, slavery is wrong? But that's just your opinion, there's nothing objectively wrong about slavery?In my opinion, in the modern era, yes of course it's wrong, which I've already stated. But of course, that's just my opinion of a old age concept in the modern era. In the old days, perhaps I would have seen things very differently. I don't know how I would have felt back then, and neither do you. Hence why that earlier question was unanswerable. Nobody is avoiding anything here, you already got an answer to this particular question ages ago, but the concept of trying to force dark age concepts into the modern era is not a realistic scenario. It's not going to happen again, because morals have changed to where slavery isn't acceptable.
The problem of federal government making decisions sometimes, is determining which issues to have control over. I of course already stated that social issues should be localised as much as possible, because it's perfectly logical. When it comes to determining what to do with the single currency, that should probably be left to the federal government. Everyone shares the same currency, so a government that everyone shares should make the decisions with it. But like I've been arguing all along, just because you think something is wrong, doesn't mean that other people think it's wrong. Slavery is a ridiculous example, so try use other examples I've mentioned such as drug legalisation. I don't think drug usage is wrong in the privacy of one's home, yet the federal government says even possessing is wrong. Is forcing a state who's happy with their citizens using drugs to ban drugs acceptable?
If you think I'm purposely chasing a straw-man, then you're not good at clarifying your stance.
The state government should deal with social issues, and local expenditure. The federal government should be responsible for issues regarding the single currency, for determining national security decisions, and for handling agreements between states. The federal government should not be responsible for determining what to do with drug legalisation, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, as those are social issues. Remember, if they make the wrong decision with regarding a social issue, you're going to have a hard time changing it. It's not about who makes the right or wrong decisions, it's about what decisions each government should be responsible for.
Let's assume you wanted to legally marry someone of the same sex. Let's assume the federal government banned same-sex marriage (which is a realistic scenario, as they've done worse). In that scenario, you'd pretty much have no options, other than attempting to make a country-wide campaign to try to get the federal government to change their mind. On the other hand, if on a state level, the amount of campaigning you have to do is significantly reduced, and you have a higher chance of getting gay marriage legalised. Alternatively, you could travel a few hundred miles and live in a state where you feel more socially accepted. By reducing the power of the federal government, you're enhancing citizen's rights, you're enhancing their options, and you're enhancing their political power.
Ignore right or wrong here, because the federal government frequently writes laws that are morally wrong. Instead, think about providing options for citizens.
I'm sure there are still people in 2012 who would say in their opinion, slavery is right, if you ask enough people.
Consider the following thought experiment: In my opinion, slavery is right. In fact, my whole family think slavery is right. Can we trust you to respect our opinion on this? Is it still your position that social issues should always be localised as much as possible, regardless of right or wrong? I ask this because my family's currently fighting against the state government on the slavery issue, and we totally believe the decision should be each family's responsibility. State vs. family, the family's clearly more local. The more you localise it, the more options each citizen would have, right? Would you sign our petition and help us condemn the state government for intervening in this local issue?