States' Rights: A Libertarian Dilemma?

[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?

Are you going to answer the question?

I'm not the one trying to turn the US into the EU,

or the Balkans.

You people are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do libertarians and other states rights-ers want to stop at the state level? Shouldn't counties have more power deciding rights issues than some big central state government ?

What if your county wants to let businesses exclude blacks, but your state government says they can't do that?

Isn't that unfair to the majority of the people in that county, to impose some one-size-fits-all arbitrary rights mandate from far off in the state capital?

 

[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?

I'm not the one trying to turn the US into the EU,

or the Balkans.

You people are.

The EU and the Balkans are very different models.
But I am not "you people" (whoever that is). If you mean Narco-libertarians then I have no idea what they want. Probably to be able to smoke dope and nod off while more ambitious countries surround them with nukes.

 

[2Parties]

Why do libertarians and other states rights-ers want to stop at the state level?

I'm not a states righter but I do not want it to stop at the state level, the county level, the city level, or the township level. It starts and stops at the individual level.

What if your county wants to let businesses exclude blacks, but your state government says they can't do that?

Who owns that property? The state, the county, or the actual owner?

Isn't that unfair to the majority of the people in that county, to impose some one-size-fits-all arbitrary rights mandate from far off in the state capital?

Yes.

 

[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?

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

Isn't that what you're advocating in your hypothetical? That nobody from that state would be permitted or forced to serve because a majority of that state opposes that particular war?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why do libertarians and other states rights-ers want to stop at the state level? Shouldn't counties have more power deciding rights issues than some big central state government ?

What if your county wants to let businesses exclude blacks, but your state government says they can't do that?

Isn't that unfair to the majority of the people in that county, to impose some one-size-fits-all arbitrary rights mandate from far off in the state capital?

The issue of states' rights is such because the individual states created the federal government, so they should maintain the dominant party in that compact. The counties and cities did not create the states, however. The states created the local governments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do libertarians and other states rights-ers want to stop at the state level? Shouldn't counties have more power deciding rights issues than some big central state government ?

What if your county wants to let businesses exclude blacks, but your state government says they can't do that?

Isn't that unfair to the majority of the people in that county, to impose some one-size-fits-all arbitrary rights mandate from far off in the state capital?

The issue of states' rights is such because the individual states created the federal government, so they should maintain the dominant party in that compact. The counties and cities did not create the states, however. The states created the local governments.

I'm talking about the principle of it, not the peculiarities of how any state came about. In fact the people of the states made the states.

Why should the central government in Sacramento, for example, have the power to make law for all the counties of California? There are counties in CA bigger than some states. Why are they not entitled to their sovereignty as much as some state is?

 

[ihopehefails]

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.

Exactly. Not only that governments tend to be less abusive on the small local level then on the large national level. They are closer to the people and know that the people can veto any law by simply moving to another town. In my opinion, the ideal situation is that 99% of the laws that affect us should be implemented at the city level.

 

[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.

Which means that conversely it would also be easier to uphold an unjust law at the state level.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why do libertarians and other states rights-ers want to stop at the state level? Shouldn't counties have more power deciding rights issues than some big central state government ?

What if your county wants to let businesses exclude blacks, but your state government says they can't do that?

Isn't that unfair to the majority of the people in that county, to impose some one-size-fits-all arbitrary rights mandate from far off in the state capital?

The issue of states' rights is such because the individual states created the federal government, so they should maintain the dominant party in that compact. The counties and cities did not create the states, however. The states created the local governments.

I'm talking about the principle of it, not the peculiarities of how any state came about. In fact the people of the states made the states.

Why should the central government in Sacramento, for example, have the power to make law for all the counties of California? There are counties in CA bigger than some states. Why are they not entitled to their sovereignty as much as some state is?

Well then you have the principle correct. A libertarian would believe the more decentralized the better.

 

[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.

Which means that conversely it would also be easier to uphold an unjust law at the state level.

We don't say it's a perfect system, but I wouldn't say that's accurate. It may be easier to pass an unjust law at the state level, just as it'd be easier to repeal an unjust law at the state level. But it's much easier to uphold an unjust law at the federal level, because once the federal government passes a law it's pretty much guaranteed to never be repealed.

 

[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.

Which means that conversely it would also be easier to uphold an unjust law at the state level.

We don't say it's a perfect system, but I wouldn't say that's accurate. It may be easier to pass an unjust law at the state level, just as it'd be easier to repeal an unjust law at the state level. But it's much easier to uphold an unjust law at the federal level, because once the federal government passes a law it's pretty much guaranteed to never be repealed.

It's harder for a state to pass an unjust law that is deemed unjust by the constitution and thus unconstitutional. The less power the federal government has to enforce justice via the constitution, the more power an individual state has to make laws that are unjust. A southern state in the 50's for example wouldn't have thought that segregation was unjust, or at least not enough of its population would have, so without the power of the federal government to intervene, that injustice could continue. Overall the entire country opposed segregation. Only via state's rights winning over federal power could the injustice prevail.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Which means that conversely it would also be easier to uphold an unjust law at the state level.

We don't say it's a perfect system, but I wouldn't say that's accurate. It may be easier to pass an unjust law at the state level, just as it'd be easier to repeal an unjust law at the state level. But it's much easier to uphold an unjust law at the federal level, because once the federal government passes a law it's pretty much guaranteed to never be repealed.

It's harder for a state to pass an unjust law that is deemed unjust by the constitution and thus unconstitutional. The less power the federal government has to enforce justice via the constitution, the more power an individual state has to make laws that are unjust. A southern state in the 50's for example wouldn't have thought that segregation was unjust, or at least not enough of its population would have, so without the power of the federal government to intervene, that injustice could continue. Overall the entire country opposed segregation. Only via state's rights winning over federal power could the injustice prevail.

There are examples of states being wrong and the federal government being right, but there are far more examples of the federal government being wrong and the states being right.

 

[Flopper]

As populations grow, communications and transportation shrinks distances, language and cultural barrier fall, power will continue to move away from the people. States rights have been slowly dying for a long time. Likewise nationalism is taking a back seat to globalization. I suspect in a hundred year, the United States will be thought of as the last great nation before the rise of global government. What a depressing thought!

 

[sweetie]

...in the end, the 'stategov.vs. fedgov.' argument is phony..worthless..like most/all political 'debate' throughout history..i.e. the phony old 'hard money vs. soft money' 'debate'/routine..

 

[The T]

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)

And that's commerce between States. Agreed.