‘Freedom’ for all
Elinor Johansen [DRC, Nov. 25] suggests that “slavery” for all would be the result of secession.
Her assumption that should each state be sovereign — as they were when the Constitution of the United States was adopted — it would allow the citizens of the several states to move where they agreed with the actions of that particular state is correct.
That is exactly what I am suggesting.
If I agree with the high taxes in New York and I want my earned wages heavily taxed and redistributed, I can move to New York.
The real issue is a matter of “scale” and the question is: How can Congress, in Washington, D.C., write laws that more than 300 million diverse people all agree with?
The answer is clear: It cannot be done. This nation is much too large and diverse.
If each state was independent and sovereign, that would allow people to move to a state where they would be happy and free to live as they wanted as directed by that state.
That would be “freedom” for all, not “slavery” for all, as we have now.
Peggy S. Hart Miller,