PDA

View Full Version : "Let the states decide..."




Starks
10-06-2007, 09:56 AM
I've always been bothered by this statement...

As an American, I have no guarantee that my state will protect my liberties.

tiznow
10-06-2007, 10:01 AM
well move to another state if you don't like what the people/elected officials in your state decided on....lot easier than moving countries when the federal government decides it for everybody

LastoftheMohicans
10-06-2007, 10:06 AM
I've always been bothered by this statement...

As an American, I have no guarantee that my state will protect my liberties.

I used to be bothered a little, too. Until I really thought about it. It is true that there is no guarantee that your state gov't will protect your liberties. All governments don't have a good track record. However, if you allow the Federal Gov't to supercede the states or a world gov't to supercede the Fed. Gov't , you have less options. If we went back to the original system and your state not only didn't protect your liberties but actually abridged them (which is more of the case), you would have the option of moving to another state the was better. With a fed. gov't holding the monopoly of protecting liberties, your only option would to leave the country.

Pete
10-06-2007, 10:22 AM
The federal government is supposed to be the preserver of guaranteed liberties at the state level, a role it has abdicated.

Hence, Ron Paul and hopefully many more like him in the future.

cujothekitten
10-06-2007, 10:24 AM
I've always been bothered by this statement...

As an American, I have no guarantee that my state will protect my liberties.

To be honest you have no guarantee that your liberties will be protected at the federal level either. When voting happens at a local level you have more of a voice since you're not voting with millions of other people. Your representatives are in your state, you can make an appointment and visit them, and you can go to city hall meetings and voice your concerns. This doesn't happen at a federal level because there's just to many people there trying to be heard.

You will always have to fight for your liberty, that's why they say freedom isn't free. The difference is that you will stand a greater chance of being heard at a state level than you ever will at a federal level.

Another plus is if your state does flounder you can move to another state instead of another country.

Steve Hunt
10-06-2007, 10:29 AM
well move to another state if you don't like what the people/elected officials in your state decided on....lot easier than moving countries when the federal government decides it for everybody

It is easy for all the emo 420 doGgG phish van people to up and move to another state, but not for families and other people...and this is who this system will PREY on.

cujothekitten
10-06-2007, 10:31 AM
It is easy for all the emo 420 doGgG phish van people to up and move to another state, but not for families and other people...and this is who this system will PREY on.

It will be even more difficult for them to move to a different country.

erowe1
10-06-2007, 11:56 AM
I've always been bothered by this statement...

As an American, I have no guarantee that my state will protect my liberties.

I understand what you're saying. I think if you're a Libertarian, which it sounds like, then you probably would not like federalism for that very reason. I personally am not a Libertarian and do like federalism. I think the label "federalist" is a more accurate description of Ron Paul's philosophy than Libertarian is.

However, even if you are a relatively pure Libertarian, I would think that you should still be able to look at the nation as it is today, and compare that to what you want it to be and be happy for every incremental step that moves toward that Libertarian nation. I would expect that you should see federalism as a step in the right direction, even if it's not your end goal.

Rich333
10-06-2007, 12:21 PM
I'm a libertarian anarchist and I like federalism. I'd rather not have to deal with territorial monopolies or taxes and instead just deal with and pay competing private agencies directly for the services I receive, but federalism does provide at least some competition between the available territorial monopolies. I still have to move to change service providers, my property is still forcibly expropriated to pay for services out of which I can't opt, and my choices in service providers are limited to only fifty, but moving within the US is still a lot easier than moving to another country, and I consider the "old world" to be for the most part a cultural and political cesspool to which I have no interest in moving.