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 (http://www.libertarianminds.com/states-rights-a-libertarian-dilemma)

[FrankRep]

If you don't like the laws of a state, move to a state with laws you like.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The more recognition states rights get the bigger the economic ass whooping libertarians can hand out to the other 49 states when they roll out a near free market in a geographically organized libertarian state. All of the leading companies in the U.S. will relocate in order to save millions.

[Lightfiend]

If you don't like the laws of a state, move to a state with laws you like.

You could also say that about countries. Oh, you don't like the direction US is heading? Go move to Somalia where there is real economic freedom (up until a few years ago it was considered a stateless society).

I frankly hate the whole "just move" argument. First, it is not always practical. Secondly, and most importantly, it doesn't excuse the right for states to be corrupt and infringe on individual liberties.

[FrankRep]

Libertarians should just move to New Hampshire and join the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org/).

Problem solved.

[jazzloversinc]

I was talking to a guy in the mall who buys gold , melts it down and makes gold bars to sell to countries who are still on the gold standard. I didn't know there were any LEFT on the gold standard but he says there are many. That's interesting. Maybe I should move to one of those..although, I'm not fond of burkas.

[Travlyr]

The more recognition states rights get the bigger the economic ass whooping libertarians can hand out to the other 49 states when they roll out a near free market in a geographically organized libertarian state. All of the leading companies in the U.S. will relocate in order to save millions.

Excellent point. :cool:

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

If you don't like the laws of a state, move to a state with laws you like.


What if their aren't any?

[specsaregood]

What if their aren't any?

Well then it is a lot easier to work to get a statelaw changed than a federal law. A lot less politicians to pay off or replace.

[haaaylee]

Well then it is a lot easier to work to get a statelaw changed than a federal law. A lot less politicians to pay off or replace.

This is a good point. I'd rather work to change a state law than a federal law, which is near impossible.

[Peace&Freedom]

Well then it is a lot easier to work to get a statelaw changed than a federal law. A lot less politicians to pay off or replace.

This is the strategic point about decentralized arrangements, it makes it more manageable to successfully mobilize for reform. The better economic and cultural conditions the freer state will have compared to the less free helps put continued competitive pressure on the latter to reform in the free direction.

And there is the matter of walking away from unfree places---the point isn't just to run, or whether it's practical, it's the threat of the population fleeing that helps check the state in its attempts to endlessly expand. There is something to be said for putting pragmatism at the service of principle, and keeping government force minimal does require putting up quite a few interlocking obstacles to contain it.

[Theocrat]

The problem I see whenever we discuss the nature of states' rights is that we forget or ignore the context of its meaning. Because we have a multi-level aspect of our republic (containing federal, state, and local governments), the term "states' rights" is used when discussing jurisdictional power between the federal and state levels of government. It's one of way saying that the states have some power to decide things which the federal government cannot. After all, that's why we have a U.S. Constitution. From my studies, states' rights was never meant to give states' unlimited and unchecked power, either. They have constitutions, as well.

[.Tom]

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. Libertarians should stay away from states rights because it's often just used as an excuse not to take a position on something.

No state, whether it's called the US or Texas or whatever, has the right to initiate aggression against individuals.

[Theocrat]

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. Libertarians should stay away from states rights because it's often just used as an excuse not to take a position on something.

No state, whether it's called the US or Texas or whatever, has the right to initiate aggression against individuals.

States do have a right to be aggressive towards people who act civilly immoral in society, by violating their neighbor's life, liberty, or property. That is the main function of civil government--to punish civil evildoers by bringing them to justice.

But I do agree with you that states should not arbitrarily initiate force against people. By that I mean stuff like eminent domain, refusal of religious practices in public (like prayer and evangelism), and drug busts.

[FrankRep]

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. Libertarians should stay away from states rights because it's often just used as an excuse not to take a position on something.

AKA: State Sovereignty

Are you against the 10th Amendment or against the Constitution in general?

[AmericaFyeah92]

decentralization isn't a moral part of Libertarianism, it's purely strategic. "City rights" or "county rights" would be even better than State's rights

[johnrocks]

I come down on individual rights first since any government can be tyrannical and authoritarian. The 9th Amendment is just as important;and overlooked; as the 10th and one in which I take pretty literally.....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Theocrat]

I come down on individual rights first since any government can be tyrannical and authoritarian. The 9th Amendment is just as important;and overlooked; as the 10th and one in which I take pretty literally.....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Individuals can be tyrannical and authoritarian, too. As a matter of fact, all authoritarian regimes stem from the fact that their leaders were, in matters of self-government, inherently tyrannically-minded. They just used the State as a way to enact the dictates of their mind.

[YumYum]

Does a state have the right to enforce a Federal law; for instance regarding murder?

Murder is a Federal crime, and every state prosecutes those accused of murder.

Shouldn't murder prosecution be left up to the Federal government?

If not, then why can't Arizona enforce the Federal laws regarding immigration?

If they can't prosecute those who violate the Federal immigration laws, then Arizona shouldn't prosecute those who violate the Federal laws regarding murder.

Let the Feds apprehend and prosecute all the murderers in Arizona.

Arizona needs to leave the murderers alone.

[Peace&Freedom]

Murder is a state crime. The federal added homicide only more recently in the country's history. When the USA started, the only federal crimes were treason, counterfeiting and piracy, and a century later, kidnapping. Just about everything else came in less than 100 years ago after the creation of the Fed, the income tax, and alcohol/drug prohibition.

[.Tom]

AKA: State Sovereignty

Are you against the 10th Amendment or against the Constitution in general?

I never signed it or agreed to it, nor did anyone else alive today.

How does the fact that 39 men signed a piece of paper over 200 years ago make it binding on over 300 million individuals today who never agreed to it?

[furface]

I'm definitely against state rights. Here are the reasons:

1. States should not have the right to ban abortion.
2. States should all have to enforce affirmative action because my view of social justice is right and people who disagree are absolutely wrong.
3. Obamacare is the right answer for all states. If you disagree, you're fascist.
4. States should all have to provide free housing for anybody who wants it. Housing is a right, not a good. If you disagree, you have no idea what fundamental rights are about.
5. States should not interfere with the enforcement of the War on Drugs. It's up to the federal government to decide what people should ingest into their bodies. The right to live in a society without other people doing drugs is fundamental. If you disagree, you're just plain wrong. Why? Cuz I said so.

There are a lot more examples of why state rights are wrong, but I don't have the time to list them all. It's just a really bad idea. Don't try to argue with me. I'm right and you're wrong. You're so wrong, that I have the right to tell you and your community how to live your lives even though you live thousands of miles away. Don't bother moving because I decide what's right for everybody everywhere. That's all you need to know.

[libertybrewcity]

it is a constant battle for libertarians on federal, state, and local levels.

[YumYum]

Murder is a state crime. The federal added homicide only more recently in the country's history. When the USA started, the only federal crimes were treason, counterfeiting and piracy, and a century later, kidnapping. Just about everything else came in less than 100 years ago after the creation of the Fed, the income tax, and alcohol/drug prohibition.

Today, murder is a Federal crime, and my point is that the state of Arizona should not enforce any Federal laws if they can't enforce the Federal Immigration Law.

[peacepotpaul]

I was talking to a guy in the mall who buys gold , melts it down and makes gold bars to sell to countries who are still on the gold standard. I didn't know there were any LEFT on the gold standard but he says there are many. That's interesting. Maybe I should move to one of those..although, I'm not fond of burkas.

yes, please tell us what those countries are.

[susano]

Source (http://www.libertarianminds.com/states-rights-a-libertarian-dilemma)

I haven't read the thread and don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but any state that is part of the union accepts the constitution as the highest law of the land. Therefore, for example, Illinois/Chicago has no right to tell you you can't own a handgun. California cannot prohibit your right to freely assemble, etc, etc, etc.

[furface]

I haven't read the thread and don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but any state that is part of the union accepts the constitution as the highest law of the land. Therefore, for example, Illinois/Chicago has no right to tell you you can't own a handgun. California cannot prohibit your right to freely assemble, etc, etc, etc.

According to you and an activist supreme court that completely mangles the interpretation of the 14th, 5th, and 2nd amendments in order to propagate a defacto federal coup over the people and states of America.

[susano]

According to you and an activist supreme court that completely mangles the interpretation of the 14th, 5th, and 2nd amendments in order to propagate a defacto federal coup over the people and states of America.

According to me? You think my statement advocates an activist SCOTUS?