Libertarians and states' rights

[Martinus]

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?

[Eddie Teach]

Libertarians will be fighting those laws at both levels. In many cases, the state legislature will be more amenable to their position, so it makes sense in the national debate to try to pass the buck.

[LaCroix]

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Generally speaking CATO institute style libertarians want less government involvement at both levels. I think they focus more on the Federal government because of the various peculiarities of our political system. For example on gay marriage, they were opposed to Federal regulation of marriage, which had typically been a State issue. They were also opposed to State bans on gay marriage, the CATO institute was one of the groups that filed an amicus on behalf of the legal challenge against California's gay marriage ban. Their reason was that they said marriage was historically a matter of private contract, and they want minimal state regulation or restriction on it. FWIW the CATO institute also opposes what in their words are "the thousands of laws regulating matters relating to marriage and transfer payments." Their ideal would be for marriage to solely be considered a private contract, with the particulars negotiated by the parties to the contract with minimal (but not no) State involvement.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul, who call themselves libertarians, really aren't. They're anti-Federalists.

I don't have much use either for "real" libertarians or anti-Federalists, as I've always believed in a powerful government and a weak citizenry.

[Tamas]

Powerful government and weak citizenry. The further you go from the most developed parts of the world, the stronger the state, and weaker the citizenry are. That is telling.

[Ed Anger]

I got enough whiffs of local government when I was working. I'll take an oppressive federal state anytime.

Ugh, zoning and planning boards. 

[Eddie Teach]

Powerful government and weak citizenry. The further you go from the most developed parts of the world, the stronger the state, and weaker the citizenry are. That is telling.

Uhm, what about Somalia? 

[Tamas]

Powerful government and weak citizenry. The further you go from the most developed parts of the world, the stronger the state, and weaker the citizenry are. That is telling.

Uhm, what about Somalia? 

I am not saying weak state plus weak citizenry is good.

[Martinus]

Generally speaking CATO institute style libertarians want less government involvement at both levels. I think they focus more on the Federal government because of the various peculiarities of our political system. For example on gay marriage, they were opposed to Federal regulation of marriage, which had typically been a State issue. They were also opposed to State bans on gay marriage, the CATO institute was one of the groups that filed an amicus on behalf of the legal challenge against California's gay marriage ban. Their reason was that they said marriage was historically a matter of private contract, and they want minimal state regulation or restriction on it. FWIW the CATO institute also opposes what in their words are "the thousands of laws regulating matters relating to marriage and transfer payments." Their ideal would be for marriage to solely be considered a private contract, with the particulars negotiated by the parties to the contract with minimal (but not no) State involvement.

Rand Paul and Ron Paul, who call themselves libertarians, really aren't. They're anti-Federalists.

I don't have much use either for "real" libertarians or anti-Federalists, as I've always believed in a powerful government and a weak citizenry.

Thanks, it makes sense - i.e. my intuition that some of the so-called libertarians are really anti-federalists seems to have been correct.

[Martinus]

Powerful government and weak citizenry. The further you go from the most developed parts of the world, the stronger the state, and weaker the citizenry are. That is telling.

I guess that makes Somalia one hell of a developed state.

[Martinus]

I got enough whiffs of local government when I was working. I'll take an oppressive federal state anytime.

Ugh, zoning and planning boards. 

Yeah, it seems to me that the higher the level of the government, the less likely it is to be intrusive, statistically, as it has more interests to balance out and is consequently more likely to do nothing about some issue. I have never experienced greater tyranny than condo associations.

So libertarians should be for a world government - and nothing in between.

[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".

[Razgovory]

Powerful government and weak citizenry. The further you go from the most developed parts of the world, the stronger the state, and weaker the citizenry are. That is telling.

Oh, I'd say the citizenry is quite strong in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan.

[crazy canuck]

Powerful government and weak citizenry. The further you go from the most developed parts of the world, the stronger the state, and weaker the citizenry are. That is telling.

The further you go from the most developed parts of the world the weaker the state and the stronger some of the citizenry are (the strong citizenry go by various names).  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.

[Zanza]

Powerful government and weak citizenry. The further you go from the most developed parts of the world, the stronger the state, and weaker the citizenry are. That is telling.

It's only telling us something about your warped world view. Most underdeveloped countries have very weak states and a huge gap between powerful tiny elites and the powerless masses.