Respecting human rights and self-autonomy is not the same thing as removing rights from people to benefit the companies/government and I wish people would stop arguing in bad faith that they're remotely similar.

You might need to clarify that position.

It is a problem when someone wants 'autonomy' in order to enforce reduced 'right's on others, or another way, my 'autonomy' is greater than your 'autonomy'.

So, lets say I'm commanded by my god to enforce that you must have kids. And I get enough people together to secede, in order to enforce these beliefs onto others. Then the people caught in this situation do have rights taken away.

Or, other people cross dressing offends me, thus I should have the right to pass laws to prevent them doing that, my 'autonomy' outweighs theirs.

It does get confusing, when some groups say they want 'autonomy' over their body when it comes to vaccines, but when it comes to 'autonomy' over having kids, suddenly it is a metaphysical law from god that can't be compromised.

Both are cases of bodily 'autonomy', and one group believes since it is a law from god, that it should be enforced onto others by government laws, which is really taking rights away.

When the group that thinks your 'autonomy' is an affront to their god, and you become the problem to be 'removed', and they are now running the government, now the government is taking away rights and infringing on the individual's 'autonomy'.

Counterpoint: Good things are good and bad things are bad. It doesn't matter the mechanism. Legalizing slavery is still bad even if it's illegal. Legalizing pot is still good even if it's illegal. When you make rules that restrict both good and bad people, it tends to be bad, because the good people feel restricted by the rules while the bad people tend to just ignore them.

fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.

""fundamental Constitutional rights of individuals vs. the states’ right to regulate health, welfare, and morality are of course not “the same argument.” This is probably why they are dealt with in distinct amendments.""

I probably need it spelled out, since to me your sentence is directly showing how they are they same argument.

If the 'state' as in states rights, wants to limit my 'health and welfare' say by limiting my health insurance and giving everyone guns, then that does also infringe on my individual rights. I'm placed in a situation of not being in a safe area with access to resources to live a healthy life. And yes, in todays world that is a 'States' right, and everyone can move. But you can't say those are separate.

If a 'State' wants to cause harm to it's own citizens, then that becomes then a conflict between the "State" and the "Central" government, who must also insure everyone has some equal measure of safety and welfare.

You're forgetting that some peoples 'morality' causes harm to others. Which can then bring into conflict the state and the central gov. Like when in Ameristan the 'state' gov starts persecuting people, maybe even disenfranchising the ability to vote at all, then the Central gov has to step in. Now there is Central-Local-Individual conflict.

Of course, regulation by the state and individual liberty are in tension. No one forgot that; it’s the basis of our system.

The argument that states can regulate marijuana relies on a right reserved to the states: the states’ police powers.

The argument that states can allow slavery directly contradicts the thirteenth amendment, where an individual’s natural right is stated.

Arguing that an individual is free because god gave him that right is very different than arguing that a state can do something because of federalism. The justification on one side is that the individual’s right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and security is sacrosanct. The argument on the other side is that the polis takes priority over the individual. They are opposite arguments that must be balanced, not “the same argument.” What they are is two sides of the same dispute, which is what I think you might mean.

am I close?

As most internet arguments, the original examples were a bit flippant, pot and slavery at opposite extremes. Yes, the shifting balance between some natural order and polis/federalism. I am saying 'same argument' you are saying 'opposite arguments'. I am meaning the same thing. It is the balance line, I was saying 'same argument' as in arguing over the point where to draw the line, not two different argument pushing from both sides.

Yes, today, there is a 13 amendment. So technically slavery is settled?

But I have heard many people use the argument that the Civil War was about 'states rights' (not slavery) in the context of today. As in re-contextualizing, saying that generally the causes of the Civil War, being 'States Rights', was actually correct, and Lincoln went too far trying to keep the Union Together. That the states should be allowed to do what they want, which generally would re-instate slavery. If a state were to secede, then the constitution would not apply. And generally that is the argument, that the central government has over-reached, and we should split.

Of course, nobody is saying bring back slavery. What is being said is that we need to join the Church and State into one, form a theocracy, and women will really just be for babies. That is an actual position people are taking today, and they use the 'states-rights' as an argument.

A state could theoretically devolve into one that doesn't reflect the values of the federation. It could begin to resemble countries that already exist today that the US doesn't do much about. The unfortunate part is that the constitution doesn't (currently) provide a way to kick out such a state. On the other hand, the constitution asserts at least some rights, and the federal government has authority to enforce federal laws (which could be passed to prohibit state actions). Also, residents of those states could freely move to other states.