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?
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 07:52:15 AM
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.
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.
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 got enough whiffs of local government when I was working. I'll take an oppressive federal state anytime.
Ugh, zoning and planning boards. :cry:
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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? :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 05, 2014, 09:20:02 AM
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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? :P
I am not saying weak state plus weak citizenry is good.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 05, 2014, 08:44:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2014, 09:12:48 AM
I got enough whiffs of local government when I was working. I'll take an oppressive federal state anytime.
Ugh, zoning and planning boards. :cry:
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. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 07:52:15 AM
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".
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 05, 2014, 10:04:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 07:52:15 AM
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.
You move among Poles, fags and lawyers.
Quote from: The Brain on December 05, 2014, 03:18:13 PM
You move among Poles, fags and lawyers.
I also met some Languishites. :secret:
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2014, 09:06:28 AM
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.
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.
Most developed countries are strong state, strong citizenry.
So all of you are wrong.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 05, 2014, 03:37:43 PM
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.
Developed countries don't so much have a weak citizenry as a fat one, really.
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 05, 2014, 04:01:12 PM
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.
:hmm: All right, I'll give you that.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 05, 2014, 04:01:12 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on December 05, 2014, 03:47:55 PM
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.
MAH MATERIAL
:lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 05, 2014, 10:04:18 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 07:52:15 AM
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"
Of course, followers of some other political ideology are all gods among men.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 05, 2014, 04:39:35 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 05, 2014, 04:10:17 PM
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
QuoteIn 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 05, 2014, 05:34:41 PM
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?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 05, 2014, 05:43:33 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2014, 05:43:38 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 05, 2014, 05:34:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2014, 05:45:19 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 05, 2014, 05:51:23 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 05, 2014, 05:45:19 PM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 05, 2014, 05:17:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 05, 2014, 04:39:35 PM
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?
Quote from: LaCroix on December 05, 2014, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 07:52:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 05, 2014, 10:35:19 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on December 05, 2014, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 07:52:15 AM
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. :P
I meant to mention something earlier, but I liked my Amerifat joke better. :)
In LaCroix' defense, though, knowing the U.S. Constitution is only important if you're one of the comparatively few people who deal with constitutional issues that don't involve criminal law, or an actual criminal attorney (in which case you have to know a few things deeply). Otherwise, con law is a total wank, could be learned more quickly from Wikipedia, and should be replaced with classes that teach you how to write complaints and answers. Because such is not, in fact, required--and in fact is hard to get, even if you recognize the deficiency and want to learn those skills.
Whereas reading a novella about abortion written in the form of a judicial opinion is apparently crucial even though, the closest you'll ever get to arguing a case about abortion is when you marshal all your persuasive skills to pressure your girlfriend into getting one because you can't afford a child. After all, it would only recapitulate your own genetic failure anyway. LAW SCHOOL MORE LIKE LOL SKOOL AMIRITE
Quote from: Martinus on December 05, 2014, 03:17:07 PM
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.
I agree. I always think this when people talk about how they think they could manage their pension funds better and just want to be able to invest. I don't think I could. I'm almost certain I'd fuck it up. That sounds like a full-time job to me and chances are I'd somehow inadvertantly end up with my entire pension invested in Greek start-ups.
And it's a bit like their attitudes to drugs. I entirely agree that if the world was made up of libertarians who, at the risk of generalising, are slightly geeky white, middle class men then chances are there wouldn't be a drug problem at all. But the difference between the crooked timber of humanity and the libertarian (or the communist - another often slightly geeky guy) image of the world is immense. We're better trying to follow warp of us as we are.
Yeah, but communism has the advantage of embracing a state strong enough to pound people into the desired shape.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 05, 2014, 05:51:23 PM
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.
Because rule of law per se is not a restriction on the state, it is a restriction on the individual human beings who are officers of the state.
State "strength" is not really properly measured by theoretical authority in any case. A strong state is one that can make its enactments effective - i.e. a state that is capable of collecting the taxes that it levies and is effective in carrying out the laws and directives that it promulgates.
A strong state is best represented by its placement on the Centralization slider.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 08, 2014, 05:24:19 PM
A strong state is best represented by its placement on the Centralization slider.
Not the size of its air force?
Air forces are great, but it's really the size and accuracy of its SSBN fleet these days. I like to think the spirit of the air force lives on in those mighty hulls.