Libertarians and states' rights

[Admiral Yi]

Lower body strength is not going to save you from suffocating during a crucifixtion.  Your feet are nailed to the cross, hence no leverage.

Not to mention your knees are likely to get shattered if you drag the thing out to long.

[Razgovory]

Ok, here is a question to Yanks - could someone explain to me why so many libertarians seem to be so big on states' rights? If one wants the government out of one's life, what difference does it make if some law is passed by the federal government or by the state government - shouldn't it be bad in both cases?

A lot of Libertarians have aspirations of ruling the roost, but know they have less chance at the national level.  So they wish to empower the local elites at the expense of the national ones, and by happy coincidence they wish to be those (or already are), the local elites.  Libertarianism also makes a nice cover if you wish to implement policy that won't fly nationally but is popular locally.  For instance, when desegregation happened you get a lot more libertarians in the South.  You look at creationist movements and you often find people professing to be libertarians demanding "local control".

It's a funny aspect of libertarianism. They all seem to believe in the rule of the strong and the powerful, with no protection for the weak, apparently imagining themselves among the former. Yet I have never met a libertarian who was not at best mediocre.

And well, some extra special individuals who adhere to Libertarianism do so because they blame their own lack of success in business or sex to the over reaching power of the state.  They are most likely to be "pure libertarian"

[Eddie Teach]

Of course, followers of some other political ideology are all gods among men.

[MadImmortalMan]

And well, some extra special individuals who adhere to Libertarianism do so because they blame their own lack of success in business or sex to the over reaching power of the state.  They are most likely to be "pure libertarian"

That's not really a philosophical foundation though. It's just...butthurt.

[crazy canuck]

Citizenry is a collective unit. Citizenry is not a person. It can't have rights or whatever. I think Gully is closer on that one. Strong citizenry is when the individual citizen has recourse to defend him/her self against abuse by the state.

I think I will respond to you the same way I responded to Tamas

In the developed world all of the citizenry have significant rights because the state is strong enough to enforce the Rule of Law and all that comes with that concept.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm not a libertarian but I prefer power to be diffused between various bodies. So, in general, I'm in favour of local government, independent judges, trades unions, professional bodies, the monarchy etc etc.

Such a division makes the abuse of power less likely, or at least less straightforward.

[MadImmortalMan]

cc--Strong enough, but not strong. Canada doesn't really have a strong state, for example. It can't abuse its citizens with impunity or anything like that. Most first world nations have relatively weak states.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not a libertarian but I prefer power to be diffused between various bodies. So, in general, I'm in favour of local government, independent judges, trades unions, professional bodies, the monarchy etc etc.

Such a division makes the abuse of power less likely, or at least less straightforward.

The irony is that local governments tend to be the most despotic and arbitrary in Western democracies.   Ever try going before a board of variance or zoning approval officer?

[crazy canuck]

cc--Strong enough, but not strong. Canada doesn't really have a strong state, for example. It can't abuse its citizens with impunity or anything like that. Most first world nations have relatively weak states.

It is a strong state because it cannot abuse its citizens.  Strong states and citizenry go hand in hand.  I am not sure why one would define a strong state as one which lacks the Rule of Law.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I'm not a libertarian but I prefer power to be diffused between various bodies. So, in general, I'm in favour of local government, independent judges, trades unions, professional bodies, the monarchy etc etc.

Such a division makes the abuse of power less likely, or at least less straightforward.

The irony is that local governments tend to be the most despotic and arbitrary in Western democracies.   Ever try going before a board of variance or zoning approval officer?

Local government is pretty emasculated here in the UK, partly for that reason, central government got tired of silly councils.

Which power centre needs to be taken down a peg or two will vary in time and place. Here in the UK it is the PM and his immediate clique IMO; may well be different in Canada.

[MadImmortalMan]

It is a strong state because it cannot abuse its citizens.  Strong states and citizenry go hand in hand.  I am not sure why one would define a strong state as one which lacks the Rule of Law.

Because the rule of law is a restriction on the state, obviously. You're suggesting that a thing is stronger when it is restricted. I don't really know what to say about that.

[crazy canuck]

It is a strong state because it cannot abuse its citizens.  Strong states and citizenry go hand in hand.  I am not sure why one would define a strong state as one which lacks the Rule of Law.

Because the rule of law is a restriction on the state, obviously. You're suggesting that a thing is stronger when it is restricted. I don't really know what to say about that.

I am suggesting that a state that has robust protection for its citizenry is stronger than a state that does not.  Yes.

[Razgovory]

And well, some extra special individuals who adhere to Libertarianism do so because they blame their own lack of success in business or sex to the over reaching power of the state.  They are most likely to be "pure libertarian"

That's not really a philosophical foundation though. It's just...butthurt.

Yeah, it's not is it?

[Tonitrus]

Ok, here is a question to Yanks - could someone explain to me why so many libertarians seem to be so big on states' rights? If one wants the government out of one's life, what difference does it make if some law is passed by the federal government or by the state government - shouldn't it be bad in both cases?

it's a founding principle of the nation. a state government is more attuned to local affairs than them politicians in D.C. also, it's all over the constitution. for example, the first amendment, second amendment, etc. don't actually apply to the states.

Until the 14th amendment came along.

[Ideologue]

Ok, here is a question to Yanks - could someone explain to me why so many libertarians seem to be so big on states' rights? If one wants the government out of one's life, what difference does it make if some law is passed by the federal government or by the state government - shouldn't it be bad in both cases?

it's a founding principle of the nation. a state government is more attuned to local affairs than them politicians in D.C. also, it's all over the constitution. for example, the first amendment, second amendment, etc. don't actually apply to the states.

Until the 14th amendment came along.

Yeah, I guess LaCroix is learning them in order.

I meant to mention something earlier, but I liked my Amerifat joke better.