The “slippery slope”
What’s to prevent certain municipalities from stripping people of hard-won federal rights?
We’re only asking that local government be able to expand rights, not restrict rights. In other words, the role of federal and state government should be to provide a floor but not a ceiling with regard to rights. Ultimately, it’s true that we all have to decide whether we truly want to abide by community majority decision-making, which will be fallible. Which would you prefer: the fallibility of your fellow community dwellers or the fallibility of “educated experts” who might live far removed from the consequences of the decisions they make?
A March 2014 posting in IOPS (International Organization for a Participatory Society) took issue with the Community Rights strategy and specifically utilized the slippery slope argument. A clear response can be read here.
How many people comprise a community? Two? One? Fifty? Three thousand?
Who determines the legal geographic boundaries of a community?
Why not simply declare that commerical corporations are subordinate to municipal corporations?
Why not organize to make changes to our state and federal constitutions directly?
The short answer is that the Communiity Rights strategy represents just that. In other words, we are using just law (Oregon Constituttion’s Article 1, Sec 1) to overturn unjust law (corporate “personhood rights”; Dillon’s Rule; Commerce Clause; state/federal preemption). What more direct and powerful action could we undertake than using our municipal governments to take a firm stand against unjust state and federal law?