Question for Libertarians:

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

What is the big deal with states' rights? I consider myself a pretty staunch libertarian (big "L" and small), but I've never really bought into the whole "states' rights" tenet. I'm more interested in individual rights. It seems like whenever an issue comes up that a Libertarian doesn't personally agree with, the standard answer is "let the states decide."

Don't get me wrong. I'm all about limiting the power and scope of the federal government, but what exactly is so much more appealing about letting state governments decide who I marry or what I put into (or remove from) my body? There are certainly some things that are better decided on a state level, and a lot of those things currently are. But I also think that some issues need to be decided on a national level, for better or for worse. Thoughts?

[Dr_Phibes]

It's the great libertarian time machine.

Hayek said 'we have to go back to a time 'when' - in his examples of a self directing system of economics.

There are no real historical examples of libertarianism, so for the purpose of arguement they draw up something familiar, something that they know from the American experience and brings them comfort. States rights, pre-depression era - it's all sentimental, romantisised stuff.
Seems silly to me though as nothing remains static - economic systems progress and take on a life of their own. It's a bit like saying you wish you could be sixteen forever.

[poptart]

Mike, simply put, this is the United STATES of America.

What might be 'good' for the people in one state might not be 'good' for the people in another state.

Hence, the states are to be free to decide for themselves what they want to happen in their own area.

But I also think that some issues need to be decided on a national level, for better or for worse.

Definitely so.

What issues should be national, iyo?

[Dinsdale]

Read the 10th Amendment.

Then ask yourself why you asked such a silly question.

[Goober McTuber]

I’m all about individual’s rights to be abused by me in any way imaginable.

Oh wait, I’m not a Libertarian. I’m a Libertine. Never mind.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Mike, simply put, this is the United STATES of America.

What might be 'good' for the people in one state might not be 'good' for the people in another state.

Hence, the states are to be free to decide for themselves what they want to happen in their own area.

But I also think that some issues need to be decided on a national level, for better or for worse.

Definitely so.

What issues should be national, iyo?

I intentionally left that vague, because I didn't really want this thread to turn into yet another abortion/gay marriage/drug legalization/fill-in-the-blank argument. But generally speaking, issues like those, that potentially affect everyone, should be decided nationally, IMO, as they are now. One issue that isn't decided nationally but probably should be is the variance in gun laws from state to state. I don't think it would be that hard to decide on a national level which guns are appropriate for hunting & self-defense, how long waiting periods should be, and how much training someone should be required to go through in order to carry a concealed weapon.

Strictly regional issues, like, for example, legislation regarding the nuances of tobacco farming, are probably better left to the state governments of North Carolina and other tobacco-producing states.

It just seems to me that if we really just let states decide on a lot of these major issues, it would initially provoke a lot of confusion and frustration and eventually devolve into an extremely segmented society (which I'm sure mvscal and others would absolutely love) where the US was essentially broken into regions based on race, class and moral beliefs. I wouldn't go so far as to predict another civil war, but it wouldn't surprise me if eventually, after a few decades, enough like-minded people gravitated towards a pocket of two or three states, set up the laws just how they like them, and ultimately try to secede.

[Dinsdale]

I don't think it would be that hard to decide on a national level which guns are appropriate for hunting & self-defense,

All of them. See that was easy.

Don't be so quick with the Constitution there, bud.

I mean...

-We should let the government decide which weapons are suitable for "sporting purposes."

-Anyone wishing to purchase a firearm needs to be registered with the government, and subjected to detailed backgroud checks.

-We should allow the government to decide which types of firearms can be owned by citizens.

-We should allow the government to decide what types of ammunition are appropriate for private citizens to own and use.



Congrats, Mike... I doubt you realize it, but you just did a beautiful job of paraphrasing Hitler... an amazing job, matter of fact.


Enacting laws that are suited to a region's constituents is muchmuchmuch easier on a state level than a federal one...


Nevermind the fact that the Bill of Rights FUCKING FORBIDS the fed from assuming certain duties...


But you asshats don't care about your rights and freedoms, and refuse to even speak of the trampling of our Rule of Law, and you'll continue to do so until it's too late.


The recent jaw-dropping expansion of the fed will only be solved by flying bullets, I'm afraid.


Sidenote -- RACK the guy sending threatening letters to the financial barons. Hopefully, people will follow through, and impose some vigilante justice on the people who stole from all of us, to the tune of a trillion fucking dollars. That would be a great start towards "For the People, By the People." If the out-of-control fed doesn't punish thieves, and instead rewards them with a trillion fucking dollars, something is horribly wrong. But nothing bullets won't fix.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

I don't think it would be that hard to decide on a national level which guns are appropriate for hunting & self-defense,

All of them. See that was easy.

Don't be so quick with the Constitution there, bud.

I mean...

-We should let the government decide which weapons are suitable for "sporting purposes."

-Anyone wishing to purchase a firearm needs to be registered with the government, and subjected to detailed backgroud checks.

-We should allow the government to decide which types of firearms can be owned by citizens.

-We should allow the government to decide what types of ammunition are appropriate for private citizens to own and use.



Congrats, Mike... I doubt you realize it, but you just did a beautiful job of paraphrasing Hitler... an amazing job, matter of fact.


Enacting laws that are suited to a region's constituents is muchmuchmuch easier on a state level than a federal one...


Nevermind the fact that the Bill of Rights FUCKING FORBIDS the fed from assuming certain duties...


But you asshats don't care about your rights and freedoms, and refuse to even speak of the trampling of our Rule of Law, and you'll continue to do so until it's too late.


The recent jaw-dropping expansion of the fed will only be solved by flying bullets, I'm afraid.


Sidenote -- RACK the guy sending threatening letters to the financial barons. Hopefully, people will follow through, and impose some vigilante justice on the people who stole from all of us, to the tune of a trillion fucking dollars. That would be a great start towards "For the People, By the People." If the out-of-control fed doesn't punish thieves, and instead rewards them with a trillion fucking dollars, something is horribly wrong. But nothing bullets won't fix.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm anti-2nd Amendment. Did you not read my first post where I said I was libertarian or did you just choose to ignore it? I'm just saying gun laws would be a lot easier to understand if they were consistent from state to state. Right now, as an Arizonan, I can drive around town with a loaded gun sitting on my passenger seat in plain view. I don't have a problem with that, I just think it's ridiculous that if I drove far enough, I'd be breaking the law in some other state.

Here are my Hitlerian views on guns, FWIW:

I don't have a problem with registering guns. You register with the government to drive a car. We have a constitutional right to vote, but we have to register to do that too. I don't think it's a lot to ask if you want to own a potentially deadly weapon to register it. That said, gun registration shouldn't be any more tedious or time consuming than registering to vote.

Buying guns should be as simple as possible. If you haven't committed any felonies, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to walk into Wal-Mart and buy whatever gun you want. It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes or so just to do a basic criminal background check.

As far as what guns civilians are allowed to own, I really don't see any reason why the average citizen would need a bazooka, M-60, or fully automatic assault rifle for hunting or home protection, but beyond that, you should be able to own whatever you want.

If you want to carry a concealed weapon, you should probably have to pass a brief safety/training/certification course - anything longer than 8 hours would seem excessive to me.

Publicly funded universities should respect the gun laws established by their states. Private universities can make whatever rules they want, but public universities (like, say, ASU for example) have no right to tell me that I can't carry a gun on campus if I'm legally entitled to do so elsewhere in the state of Arizona.

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Give me a break, man. They were fighting with fucking muskets and swords when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. Are you really trying to say that anyone over the age of 18 should be able to just saunter into a gun shop and buy a fucking rocket launcher as casually as a pack of gum?

[Mikey]

If you're going to own a Mountain Howitzer you should at least know how to field dress a deer.


http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm

[MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan]

Give me a break, man. They were fighting with fucking muskets and swords when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.

So?

Are you really trying to say that anyone over the age of 18 should be able to just saunter into a gun shop and buy a fucking rocket launcher as casually as a pack of gum?

No. They should be able to saunter into a gun shop and have their purchase of that rocket launcher registered and then qualify on that weapon to ensure that they are properly trained. Any modern small arm should be available to the public. That is what it means to have a well regulated militia. Hell, if you can afford an armored vehicle...knock yourself out. Maybe get a few neighbors together to crew it and split the costs.

The right to bear arms isn't only about hunting and self defense, it is the last barrier between you and a police state.

I get your point, and I agree to a certain extent, although I think your definition of "small arms" is pretty broad if it includes rocket launchers and M-60s.

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

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...it is the last barrier between you and a police state.

How's it going, mvcodepink?

Give Michael Moore my warmest regards, you tinfoil hat wearing lunatic.

[battery chucka' one]

Okay, the idea of states rights being the primary focal point is the idea of contrasting 'top-down' governing versus 'bottom-up'. With the staunchest of liberals, the idea is to set forth a big central federal government. Therefore, this giant monolith can pass down laws and such to give rights from the government to the people. The government is always there and from it the rights of the people emanate. I find this somewhat repulsive, personally. Rights are rights and the government is supposed to be by the people, for the people. On the flipside, bottom up implies that the people are born with rights and it's their job to create the government.

Thus, we have a big dilemma. To where shall a national party place its focus? Theoretically, the power comes to the national scene via the individual-family/home-neighborhood-city-county-state-nation flow. Therefore, since a national party's focus is on the national scene, the source to bring it there is at the state level. In following, the state's authority is from the county and so on down the line. For a national party to focus on empowering anything below the level that gives them power would be to overstep their bounds. Therefore, they must defer to the states and their rights. Of course, there are situations where the federal government is necessary (national security).

Another reason is practicality. To create laws on a city by city level is silly. There has to be a stopping point as to where you agree to abide by rules/laws. That is best done at the state level. Pop stated this well (no pun intended).

As far as individual rights, the question is what is an individual right? If two gay men want to live together and have sex, they have every right to do so. However, if they want to be afforded all the same rights as a heterosexual couple, that's different. If they want to be married, that too is different. If they carry out their own ceremony in their house, then they're married (if even in their eyes alone). However, when they go to the government and demand to be allowed the same privileges, then they are no longer talking individual rights. They are now working with the rights of the level they go to. The state allows it and they are now talking rights under the state. If they demand the same provisions as the state provides heterosexual couples, then it's beyond their home. It's now applicable at the state level and each state decides for themselves (based upon the power given to it) what they wish to define as 'marriage'. Let's look at it this way:

A state, we'll call them the state of Confusion, provides, to every married couple, one cookie per year (work with me here). All the communities and counties in the state have decided that they wish the state to do this. They define a married couple as one man and one woman. A homosexual couple (who considers themselves married), also wants a cookie. All the communities and counties have already defined marriage (and who gets cookies) as man and woman. In their house, the gay couple can consider themselves married. However, in the eyes of the state, they are not. Individual rights are not trodden on unless they wish to trod on the wishes of the other individuals. Perhaps they can move to another state (state of Bliss) where they allow homosexual marriage at a state level. Otherwise, they must defer to the other individuals for the rules of the society.

Hope I was semi-coherent with this thought process. It's late and I'm traveling tomorrow (or today). I'll probably want to change some of this later. Dunno.

[Goober McTuber]

Hope I was semi-coherent with this thought process.

Based on your posting history, not bloody likely.