States' Rights: A Libertarian Dilemma?

[Lightfiend]

While the Federalist notion of state sovereignty is appealing, in the sense that it funnels power closer to individuals, it shouldn't be forgotten that local governments can often be just as tyrannical as federal ones...

For instance, having the political platform that the War on Drugs or gay marriage is a state issue, a traditional constitutional response, does not address core libertarian principles like self-ownership or the freedom to associate. While constitutionalists insist “What about state’s rights!” libertarians should be more focused on, “Does any majority have the right to tell grown adults what they can and cannot consume?”

Source

 

[JBeukema]

states are collectives that force themselves upon anyone who happens to live in a given region and do not exist in a libertarian system


-just like in communism, actually

 

[The Rabbi]

Narco-libertarians are generally for anything that gravitates towards anarchy.

 

[2Parties]

Libertarians who are for "states rights" just for "states rights" sake are not really libertarians...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians accept the idea of federalism because it is easier to overturn an unjust law at the state or local level than it is at the national level.

 

[manifold]

There is no necessary overlap between libertarian ideology and states rights.

To say there is betrays one's ignorance or agenda peddling motive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libertarians accept the idea of federalism because it is easier to overturn an unjust law at the state or local level than it is at the national level.

According to Madison, it's easier at the state level, with the states having more power, to have injustices imposed by majorities on minorities.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarians accept the idea of federalism because it is easier to overturn an unjust law at the state or local level than it is at the national level.

According to Madison, it's easier at the state level, with the states having more power, to have injustices imposed by majorities on minorities.

I've never read that from Madison, and certainly don't agree with it. As I said before, it's easier to overturn unjust laws at the state or local level, and if all else fails you can "vote with your feet." You can move to another city or another state that doesn't have that law. That's not an option with federal law, because it's one size fits all for every state.

 

[Oddball]

While the Federalist notion of state sovereignty is appealing, in the sense that it funnels power closer to individuals, it shouldn't be forgotten that local governments can often be just as tyrannical as federal ones...

For instance, having the political platform that the War on Drugs or gay marriage is a state issue, a traditional constitutional response, does not address core libertarian principles like self-ownership or the freedom to associate. While constitutionalists insist “What about state’s rights!” libertarians should be more focused on, “Does any majority have the right to tell grown adults what they can and cannot consume?”

Source

True as that is, one can always move to another state if you don't like the particular state's laws. You can also live in border cities if you want to have the best of both states' politics (i.e. St. George, Utah).

It's quite a bit more difficult to pick up and leave the country.

 

[The T]

states are collectives that force themselves upon anyone who happens to live in a given region and do not exist in a libertarian system


-just like in communism, actually

You by your post show quite succinctly that you have NO idea of the Tenth Amendment and it implications regarding thier Sovereign control aside from the Fed. You are polluted.

 

[Ragnar]

The only "dilemma" is the usurpation of individual rights by either of the above. I do agree with some here that State level and local level politics are easier delt with than national level politics.

Dude made a good point also that I can speak directly to. Living in Cincinnati, I'm a guy who crosses borders often for my personal advantage. (buying cig's in Kentucky, fireworks in Indiana etc etc)

 

[sweetie]

...as one wag put it, "apparently these stooooooooooopid republicrats can't get it through their fat government-skool brainwashed skulls that 'STATES' DON'T/CAN'T 'HAVE RIGHTS'..'states' are concepts/labels and even you fucking republicrat fools ought to be able to understand that concepts/labels don't 'have rights'..only real, living people can 'have rights'.."

..but have a good day anyway!..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libertarians accept the idea of federalism because it is easier to overturn an unjust law at the state or local level than it is at the national level.

According to Madison, it's easier at the state level, with the states having more power, to have injustices imposed by majorities on minorities.

I've never read that from Madison, and certainly don't agree with it. As I said before, it's easier to overturn unjust laws at the state or local level, and if all else fails you can "vote with your feet." You can move to another city or another state that doesn't have that law. That's not an option with federal law, because it's one size fits all for every state.

Ok, let's discuss a real life rights issue. Gun rights. Based on your stand for state's rights over federal power,

wouldn't it be more in keeping with your view if we repealed the 2nd amendment and left the issue of gun ownership and gun rights up to the individual states?

Isn't it an unjust imposition of what you call one size fits all federal power for the federal government to dictate to the states what they can or can't do in the area of gun laws?

What if the majority of people of a certain state believe that, for example, personal ownership of semi-automatic weapons should be illegal? Why should that state be subjected to the iron fist of the federal government telling them NO!!! you can't do that?

 

[The Rabbi]

According to Madison, it's easier at the state level, with the states having more power, to have injustices imposed by majorities on minorities.

I've never read that from Madison, and certainly don't agree with it. As I said before, it's easier to overturn unjust laws at the state or local level, and if all else fails you can "vote with your feet." You can move to another city or another state that doesn't have that law. That's not an option with federal law, because it's one size fits all for every state.

Ok, let's discuss a real life rights issue. Gun rights. Based on your stand for state's rights over federal power,

wouldn't it be more in keeping with your view if we repealed the 2nd amendment and left the issue of gun ownership and gun rights up to the individual states?

Isn't it an unjust imposition of what you call one size fits all federal power for the federal government to dictate to the states what they can or can't do in the area of gun laws?

What if the majority of people of a certain state believe that, for example, personal ownership of semi-automatic weapons should be illegal? Why should that state be subjected to the iron fist of the federal government telling them NO!!! you can't do that?

That's actually the subject of the current court case McDonald v Chicago. Would you like the other rights spelled out in the BoR to apply only to the Federal gov't as well? Because that was the law until after the Civil War.

 

[editec]

The tension between separation of powers is a good thing.

Like most of you I see that the Federalist powers have overwhelmed the states powers.

But unlike at least some of you, I do not see the state governments as being naturally a less corrupt form of government.

State governments can be just as oppressive up as the Feds.

 

[manifold]

There is no necessary overlap between libertarian ideology and states rights.

To say there is betrays one's ignorance or agenda peddling motive.

I wonder which one is at work here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shouldn't state sovereignty extend to defense? Why should any state be required to send its citizens to die in a war that the majority in the state oppose?

 

[The Rabbi]

Shouldn't state sovereignty extend to defense? Why should any state be required to send its citizens to die in a war that the majority in the state oppose?

Are you going to answer the question?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Shouldn't state sovereignty extend to defense? Why should any state be required to send its citizens to die in a war that the majority in the state oppose?

Well the argument against that would be, why should those who want to serve be stopped just because a majority in their state oppose it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Shouldn't state sovereignty extend to defense? Why should any state be required to send its citizens to die in a war that the majority in the state oppose?

Well the argument against that would be, why should those who want to serve be stopped just because a majority in their state oppose it?

No that's no argument because it assumes that states would prevent their citizens from doing so.

Or, we can use the Dude remedy... they can move to a prowar state.