I recently stumbled upon a blog where some traditional conservative was talking about Ron Paul's endorsement of 'Nullification'. Invariably, he makes the comparison to John C Calhoun, who is a dubious political figure of the past to say the least. Before I go any further into--even explaining what the idea of nullification is--I think it is appropriate to dispose of some of the myths that are immediately brought up when there is talk of nullification. The reason is people on the left who attack nullification do so, not by criticizing the idea--at all--but instead by associating it with 'bad people' and bad ideas. They would like you to think of pro-slavery neo-confederates when you hear the term nullification. So let me point out some things nullification has been used for:

1. Nullifying fugitive slave laws - Here states outright refused to return escaped slaves to their master.

2. Nullifying Alien and Sedition Acts - Here Jefferson and Madison encouraged states to declare these acts (which allowed people to be imprisoned for speaking ill of the president, for example) unconstitutional.

3. Daniel Webster suggested conscription for the war of 1812 was not allowed by the US Constitution and as a result, conscription should not be allowed by the states.

4. Nullification was used to oppose crippling protectionist tariffs which led to the nullification crisis (where Calhoun became famous as a proponent of state nullification). I might add here, that most all modern economists think high tariffs are bad ideas.

More modern issues

5. Nullify federal drug laws... as in California and a few other states now.

6. Nullify the NDAA. That is, a few bills are around.. I think even a few successful which state that state government officials are not allowed to comply with federal government officials when enforcing the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA.

7. Gay marriage laws. Simply put, nullification would not recognize the federal government's authority to decide who can be married, one way or the other. The great part about this is that it allows states to decide for themselves which expand the choices that are available to both conflicting groups rather than trying to force one solution on everyone.

8. Nullifying FCC control of the internet... bills like SOPA.

9. Nullifying UN intrusions on gun rights.

10. Nullification of the patriot act

11. Nullifying Obamacare

Anyway, nullification or also interposition is the idea that states should have the authority to determine whether law is constitutional or not, and where it is unconstitutional refuse to enforce, or pass legislation which directly makes enforcement of the laws illegal. It is the idea that no body of government, specifically the federal government, should be the arbitrator of it's own power. Thomas Woods makes the comparison that allowing the federal government to decide it's own power is like allowing all disputes between you and I to be resolved by my mother. She might be fair once in a while, but you can guess who she will usually side with. This idea was endorsed by Jefferson and Madison and many other very important figures in America's early history. Nullification has great applications to opposing corporatism, over-regulation and civil rights violations.

The other part is that THERE IS NO GOOD ARGUMENT FOR MOST GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS TO BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL!!!! Almost every social program from Medicare to Social security can be better implemented at the state level, becoming more dynamic and responsive to the needs of the benefactors and funders. It is worth noting, that you have to have a pretty loose constitution to think it authorizes programs like social security and medicare, despite how federal judges have ruled. Turns out when you are a shill for centralized power, you tend think 'due process' means whatever the hell you want.

It is worth noting that probably anyone who has studied law has been conditioned against this, since they will usually spend much more time studying jurisprudence and court cases where the judges probably made the wrong ruling rather than what the constitution actually says and what it was understood to mean by the people who ratified it.

So the part where confirmation bias comes in. I see this all over whenever I read an article opposing nullification. They don't make an argument against it, in general. Instead they mention specters like Calhoun, and just by them saying that, you should immediately begin apologizing to your telescreen. You will almost never see them mention Jefferson or Madison, or the principles of 98. This is called confirmation bias. Most everyone does it, but this is a particular example where a whole set of people do it repetitively so much so that it is pretty much included in the talking points on the issue.

I might have to have this explained to me, but I am attempting to understand the benefits packages offered by my new employer.

So I can either get something like standard insurance coverage, or high deductible coverage with an HSA. I guess looking at the numbers, it seems astonishing that anyone would not choose HSA converage. So much so, I am doubting I understand it correctly. With the standard option (in theory) the total out-of-pocket expenses for coverage and deductible for would be somewhere between 4,278 and 8,778 (if only one person reached the maximum 6,278). The company which recently hired me gives a 1000 dollar contribution to the HSA every year (though I am not sure if that is included in my salary or not). So, with a 1500 deductible the annual premium is 618 per year, the total out-of-pocket cost is between -382 and 5,618. Meaning, if I incur no medical expenses, I basically make money off of my employer's contribution. Money contributed to the HSA rolls over every year. So I am not sure why anyone would ever not choose an HSA. It is better in both the best and worse case scenarios.