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?

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.

[The Brain]

You move among Poles, fags and lawyers.

[Martinus]

You move among Poles, fags and lawyers.

I also met some Languishites. 

[DGuller]

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.

What's telling is your ability to alter reality until it fits your dogma.  In the developed parts of the world, you actually have a very strong state, with restrictions on it, and fairly weak citizenry, with protections.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think it's just that the closer the power is to the local level the more influence the individual citizen has on it.

Like everything else in politics it's about fear. If a person fears a thing, that person will have an impulse to control that thing. No different than controlling health care because we fear illness or controlling welfare because we fear poverty.

[The Minsky Moment]

Most developed countries are strong state, strong citizenry.
So all of you are wrong.

[The Brain]

You move among Poles, fags and lawyers.

I also met some Languishites. 

[DGuller]

Most developed countries are strong state, strong citizenry.
So all of you are wrong.

Depends on how you define strong citizenry.  I define is as the ability to defy the government, openly or covertly.  It's very hard to defy the government in developed countries;  you can do more thing legally in such countries, but if what you're doing is not legal even there, then it will be pretty hard to get away with it.  In the less developed countries, you can have the government on your payroll.

[Ideologue]

Developed countries don't so much have a weak citizenry as a fat one, really.

[The Minsky Moment]

Strong citizenRY is different from a country where some individual citizens are powerful.

Where there there is a strong and rich civil society where citizens can and do organize themselves outside of the state -- and even use those organizations to monitor the state -- there is a strong citizenry.  Where there are durable and effective measures of political accountability for state actors and those measures are used, there is a strong citizenry.

Strong state, strong citizenry is really the hallmark of the modern "western" concept of political liberal democracy.

[DGuller]

Strong citizenRY is different from a country where some individual citizens are powerful.

Where there there is a strong and rich civil society where citizens can and do organize themselves outside of the state -- and even use those organizations to monitor the state -- there is a strong citizenry.  Where there are durable and effective measures of political accountability for state actors and those measures are used, there is a strong citizenry.

Strong state, strong citizenry is really the hallmark of the modern "western" concept of political liberal democracy.

All right, I'll give you that.

[Martinus]

Strong citizenRY is different from a country where some individual citizens are powerful.

Where there there is a strong and rich civil society where citizens can and do organize themselves outside of the state -- and even use those organizations to monitor the state -- there is a strong citizenry.  Where there are durable and effective measures of political accountability for state actors and those measures are used, there is a strong citizenry.

Strong state, strong citizenry is really the hallmark of the modern "western" concept of political liberal democracy.

That is correct. Powerful NGOs and civic movements - not warlords - are a sign of strong citizenry.

[alfred russel]

Depends on how you define strong citizenry. 

There are a lot of metrics to use out there, but I think it all comes down to squat strength. Think about Atlas. So many pictures depict him carrying the world, but focus on the waist up. Strong arms and shoulders are important, but if you want to carry the weight of the world you need a strong base and that really comes from squats. A lot of people overlook this.

Say you are nailed to a cross. Most people die of suffocation as they can't support their own weight. You want to last longer? Push ups aren't going to save you. You need to squat more. Had Jesus squatted more, he could have easily lasted until Saturday, and maybe even Sunday. That would push the resurrection/Easter to Monday or Tuesday, which would mean we are now missing out on thousands of years of extra holidays.

Think about those consequences before skipping your next squat session.

[Ideologue]

MAH MATERIAL

[MadImmortalMan]

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.