States rights = more liberty, is a fantasy?

[ClayTrainor]

Please respond to this :)


As for states' rights, supporting that position in the U.S. is very curious. Practically the ONLY thing it has been used for in the past is the resistance of civil rights.

The south used states' rights to support continuing slavery, to support Jim Crow laws, and to resist federal desegregation. Strom Thurmond called his white supremacist party the "States' Rights Party".

The idea that states' rights = more liberty is a fantasy. The OPPOSITE has been the case throughout history.





He is responding to this comment that i made.


And, i agree that policing is one of the few services a government should provide.

They must be bound by the constitution though, and they must not "require" citizens to pay into a federal system.

Crime and policing should be done at the local level, by local governments.

Ron Paul is a supporter of states rights, and not anarchism.

He respects the rule of law, and knows that free-market principles always outperform socialist ones in terms of economics.

Ayn Rand, was too militaristic for me.


A little help, crafting a response? :)

[nate895]

Central governments have killed more people than any state government ever has. When states make mistakes, it is easy to pick up and leave them. When the Federal government makes mistakes, everyone pays. Also, with the size of our country, it is simply impossible to have a strong central government without a significant loss of liberty. By its very nature, it is large and unwieldy and requires more resources than a state government.

[phill4paul]

The importance of state rights lies in the premise that the smaller the government agency the easier it is to change and/or manage. Local, state, Federal, where do you think an individual will have a larger voice?;):D

[ClayTrainor]

Nice, thanks guys.

Just the answers i was looking for :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

You were wrong to say that police are a legitimate state function. There are numerous articles on this very website that demonstrate the feasibility of private security and the threat to liberty that government police pose. Sorry to be harsh, man, but it had to be said. :cool: You would be better off showing the folly of central management by the federal gov'ment in general. (welfare/warfare state, Great Society, etc.)

It's true that RP is not an avowed anarchist (yet), his ideas (such as eliminating the fed, reducing the federal gov'ment, etc) would pave the way for making autarchism more possible in the average person's mind. (it's possible now, but the average person is so accustomed to Statism that he cannot comprehend it yet.)

[ChaosControl]

^ While security is fine for protection, what about after a crime has been committed. If no police, who has the authority to arrest them? Specifically in an anarchist society. How would any laws be enforced, only talking about when one person harms another as those are the only laws worth enforcing.

[ItsTime]

States can make any laws they want WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION.


The NORTH hand slaves too.

[BenIsForRon]

The importance of state rights lies in the premise that the smaller the government agency the easier it is to change and/or manage. Local, state, Federal, where do you think an individual will have a larger voice?;):D

This

[Andrew-Austin]

Slavery/racism/civil rights is not an issue anymore, its wrong to project past motives for state's rights on to the present. What is an issue today is the tyranny from the Federal government, of which increasing state sovereignty would help to battle.

I'm sure the always politically incorrect Walter Block has some intriguing thoughts on this subject, if you want to be the one to search.

[South Park Fan]

State governments don't intervene overseas, make unnecessary wars, print fiat money, etc.

[GunnyFreedom]

The violation of American's civil rights was as much of a violation of Constitutional principle; as was the violation of state sovereignty. Because BOTH were being violated concurrently, does not imply causation, nor does it make either violation just.

The Constitutional Order is exemplified by the Ninth and the Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution. According to the Ninth Amendment, no enumeration of a right or a lack thereof within the US Constitution should imply the lack of such a right. In other words, the Federal Government is only empowered to relate to the Citizens of the United States precisely according to what the Constitution allows and no further.

This, in effect, makes the individual American Citizen sovereign over his or her own Government, with the Federal Government acting as the citizen's agent, or servant. ie "public servant" means what it says.

The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states that those powers not enumerated to the Federal Government according to the Constitution, are reserved, to the States, and to the people, respectively.

This is a clear delineation of jurisdiction. The individual has jurisdiction OVER the State, and the State has jurisdiction OVER the Federal Government.

Today, this "upside-down" pyramid of power that set America apart and made us great, has been turned over again to model the powers of old kings and dictators. And the results are clear: The American Republic is in decline.

To restore local government, is to restore the greatness of the American Republic. Where everybody can go somewhere and participate in exactly the sort of government they want -- just by searching it out (perfect in the Information Age)

If you are so desperate to live out your life as an American Communist, by all means move to Illinois and live the dream. If you so badly crave to spend the rest of your days in the throes of Fascism, set up shop in Idaho and rally the troops! If you really want to understand liberty, individual freedom and personal sovereignty, don't hesitate to move to Montana and learn how to become the greatest 'you' there ever was.

But where the Federal Government *IS* empowered, it must be complete, and ruthless. The Fed Gov should exist to protect the individuals against the State's infringement of the Bill of Rights.

Where the individual States are infringing upon the enumerated rights of the American Citizen, then the person should be protected against the State. This is because the Fed Gov has been given the DUTY of carrying out the Constitution, which guarantees a right to free speech, to bear arms, etc. This is the Fed Gov's SOLE REASON FOR EXISTING (aside from national defense) and it ought to behave that way.

[revolutionman]

Central governments have killed more people than any state government ever has. When states make mistakes, it is easy to pick up and leave them. When the Federal government makes mistakes, everyone pays. Also, with the size of our country, it is simply impossible to have a strong central government without a significant loss of liberty. By its very nature, it is large and unwieldy and requires more resources than a state government.

States misuse power, just like the federal government misuses power, but your state capital is closer, and there are fewer people to convince in order to get shit done.

On the federal level you need to reach about 90,000,00, otherwise the federal government just writes your off as a disgruntled fringe group to be ignored.

On the State level you are working on a significantly smaller scale. In my homestate of Massachusetts with a population of 6 million, you can go somewhere with just a few hundred thousand supporters.

There was a sociological disconnect between the north and south for a long time. In our modern times, people are on the same page for the most part, regarding race and gender. The only issue left now is the gays, and the national split on that is not as simple as red state, blue state.

Oh there is also the illegal immigrants, the democrats want to create a new affirmative action for illegals, watch out for it.

I don't care for homosexuality one bit, but its pretty friggin obvious that they deserve equal rights. I don't think that any religious institution should be forced to accept homosexuals, but I think they should be able to be married by government, and their union should be recognized by law. But I also don't believe in federal blanket registration. Some people in some regions of the country are not of the same opinion as me and i don't think my opinion should be forced down their throat. They will come to see my PoV in their own time.

I'm glad the gays are making some progress on the state level, it will help remind people that there still is a state level.

[Kraig]

Government and liberty are a fantasy.

[Cowlesy]

The importance of state rights lies in the premise that the smaller the government agency the easier it is to change and/or manage. Local, state, Federal, where do you think an individual will have a larger voice?;):D

I agree. In today's day and age, if you used states rights to make your state oppressive (or hateful/bigoted), I'd surmise it'd give those citizens an incentive to change on the local level, or simply to leave.

I think you will see an exodus of firms out of NY in coming years as the government jacks up taxes to feed all the out-stretched palms who've grown accustomed to government largess.

Most of you, if you were forced to watch the local NY1 news station, would throw up at the ridiculous people and their arguments about how "the city should layoff NO ONE" and that "Yes, all city union employees should get raises. I don't care if private sector people aren't, they've gotten them in the past" while the Moderator inquires as to why the State should go further into deficit just for these employees.

[sailor]

Seccesion in itself can not guarantee more liberty. There are enough examples of small states that were/are very opressive. For example North Korea, Cambodia under Pol Pot or Albania under Hoxha.

[Original_Intent]

The closer that the governing power is to the individual, the better, and the more free.

To heck with "state's rights", Let's push for more individual rights, family rights, and community rights.

[Kraig]

Seccesion in itself can not guarantee more liberty. There are enough examples of small states that were/are very opressive. For example North Korea, Cambodia under Pol Pot or Albania under Hoxha.

Any state that uses tyranny and violence to remain in power and collect money from it's population will not be a source of liberty. It doesn't matter how big or small it is, only a fool would expect liberty to be provided from the hands of a thug.

[torchbearer]

The decentralization of power is always good for freedom.
I believe the closer the government is to a person the better.
The further the government is the fewer powers it should have.

[Kraig]

The decentralization of power is always good for freedom.
I believe the closer the government is to a person the better.
The further the government is the fewer powers it should have.

Funny because the closer the government is to me the worse I seem to be, state or federal. I know what you are trying to say though.

[torchbearer]

Funny because the closer the government is to me the worse I seem to be, state or federal. I know what you are trying to say though.

If the mayor of my town does something fucked up, I know where he lives, I know his family. I can walk up to the fuck at walmart and choke him if he tries to tax me.
The pricks in DC are untouchable to me.
There in lies the difference.
A government that can be held accountable, a government that can't be held accountable.
The one that can't be held accountable is going to be tyrannical with enough power.

[Kraig]

If the mayor of my town does something fucked up, I know where he lives, I know his family. I can walk up to the fuck at walmart and choke him if he tries to tax me.
The pricks in DC are untouchable to me.
There in lies the difference.
A government that can be held accountable, a government that can't be held accountable.
The one that can't be held accountable is going to be tyrannical with enough power.

well the local cops in this town are untouchable to me too

[torchbearer]

well the local cops in this town are untouchable to me too

cops are nothing compared to the U.S. military.
I have a better chance at changing my local laws than any other level of government.
If the only laws your local cops could enforce are the ones your local government made, you'd have more control over what those power freaks get to do under the guise of uniform.

[torchbearer]

"When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson

I think what I'm getting at is best said the way Jefferson stated it.
He is a decentralist, so is Daniel Hannan.
They both understand the balance that is required to have both a secure environment against mob destruction of rights and individual liberty.

[MPN]

Someone may have touched on this already, but the whole premise here is a bit deceiving.

Government, at all levels, can be oppressive. There are many schools of thought with authors who shed light on the oppression of the individual.

Here is how I, personally, would respond to his post,


As for states' rights, supporting that position in the U.S. is very curious. Practically the ONLY thing it has been used for in the past is the resistance of civil rights.

The south used states' rights to support continuing slavery, to support Jim Crow laws, and to resist federal desegregation. Strom Thurmond called his white supremacist party the "States' Rights Party".

The idea that states' rights = more liberty is a fantasy. The OPPOSITE has been the case throughout history.

First of all, the notion of states rights is not a “position”. States Rights are one of many products derived in the principles outlined by many avid political theorists and thinkers of the American Revolutionary period. This rough theory and general notion of governance is predominantly referred to as Federalism (or American Federalism).

The historical nomenclature of ‘states rights’ is long and broad. To say the concept of individual sovereignty at the collective state level has only OPPRESSED the individual is naïve.

[Kraig]

Someone may have touched on this already, but the whole premise here is a bit deceiving.

Government, at all levels, can be oppressive. There are many schools of thought with authors who shed light on the oppression of the individual.

Here is how I, personally, would respond to his post,



First of all, the notion of states rights is not a “position”. States Rights are one of many products derived in the principles outlined by many avid political theorists and thinkers of the American Revolutionary period. This rough theory and general notion of governance is predominantly referred to as Federalism (or American Federalism).

The historical nomenclature of ‘states rights’ is long and broad. To say the concept of individual sovereignty at the collective state level has only OPPRESSED the individual is naïve.

Who exactly thought if "states rights" in this way? It seems to me it was more the middle point that was reached after bargaining, rather then the ideal of any one person.

[GunnyFreedom]

well the local cops in this town are untouchable to me too

so were these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

[Kraig]

so were these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

It's a nice story but once my ass is on the line no one is going to care. The police will be able to do what they want with me. Even if I did try to fight back there are too many of them, and ultimately my fellow citizens just won't care.

[Original_Intent]

It's a nice story but once my ass is on the line no one is going to care. The police will be able to do what they want with me. Even if I did try to fight back there are too many of them, and ultimately my fellow citizens just won't care.

Yep. 57 guys with "no chance" told the entire British Empire where to stick it.

When they said "Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor" they literally expected that was exactly what they were sacrificing.

[MPN]

Who exactly thought if "states rights" in this way? It seems to me it was more the middle point that was reached after bargaining, rather then the ideal of any one person.

In what way?

I guess I don’t really understand the question.

If you are asking me to identify a specific name from the time period, I’d be hard pressed to do so. Federalism was indeed a compromise.

[nobody's_hero]

State-by-state governing by the people opens up a full-blown competition. States that adopt more freedom-friendly laws will theoretically flourish, and those which adopt tyrannical laws will see businesses and educated families move away to other more tolerable states. (Which is why I find things like the Free State project interesting).

Right now, we have no competition.

Imagine how boring a Nascar race would be if every racer's engine was governed at 10 Miles per hour. (That's basically what happens when the Federal Government throws blanket laws over the union).

EDIT: The U.S. Constitution also guarantees to every state a republican form of Government. A big centralized government is far from a republic. (Article 4, section 4)

[Kraig]

In what way?

I guess I don’t really understand the question.

If you are asking me to identify a specific name from the time period, I’d be hard pressed to do so. Federalism was indeed a compromise.

My point exactly.