When did the libertarians become the states'-rights party?

[dead0man]

At the end of the day I want the individual to be as free as possible without infringing on the freedom of other individuals.  How we get to that matters little to me.  The Federal govt of the US, in my opinion, has too much power.  For example, highway speed limits.  There is no national highway speed limit, yet the Federal govt still uses FORCE to make states fall in line.  Montana had (basically) no daytime speed limit on its highways.  The Feds didn't like it, but they couldn't do anything about it using the law.  So they threatened to withhold highway funds from Montana if they didn't get in line.  That is BS.  That, and hundreds...probably thousands of other things is why I tend to lean to the "states rights" side of things. 

But there are some things our founders thought needed to be included at the Federal level.  Not powers they have, powers WE have, powers that neither they or the states can take away from us.  Freedom to say things most people don't like.  Freedom to print things the govt and other Americans don't like.  Freedom to go worship in a way most people find odd or disturbing.  Freedom to gather in groups and discuss things most people don't like.  Freedom to ask the govt questions they might not want to answer and to not be punished for asking those questions.  The freedom to own a gun for personal defense.  The freedom to own a gun to help defend your state or nation.  The freedom to not worry that the govt can come in at anytime and rustle through your sh**t.  The right to stare down anybody that accuses you of something.  Others.  I don't want Mississippi to take away my right to say things most people find questionable.  I don't want DC to take away my right to defend myself, but if DC wants to have free medical care for all?  GREAT!  More power to 'em.  As long as they don't ask the people of Maine to pay for it.  If Cali wants to give free education to everybody, but only until they are 14, GREAT!  More power to 'em.  But they (Cali) shouldn't be able to take away my right to own a gun that's never been used in a crime inside the state, and if they do (and they have) I will bitch and moan about it (and I have).

Bottom line, libertarians (big L or little l, right leaning or left leaning) are not the states'-rights party anymore than we are the "guns" party or the "full of nuts" party.  We are the "peoples'-rights" party.


(I also wanted to mention the trial and error part of "states' rights" but couldn't find a good place to work it in.  I like the idea that Minnesota can try something that the rest of the country doesn't have to try.  If it works in Minn, maybe it will work in Nebraska too, or something like it.  Maybe Iowa can take what Minn did and tweak it a little and it will work even better in Iowa.  Maybe it wouldn't work at all in Florida, so they try something else down there and fails miserably.  Texas was thinking about doing what Florida did, but now knows it should look at a different solution.  Some things can work amazingly well at one place and be a total non-starter at another location.  Many many things should be taken care of at the most local level possible, but not everything...obviously.  And any libertarian that tells you otherwise hasn't thought his way through it yet.)

[dead0man]

At the end of the day I want the individual to be as free as possible without infringing on the freedom of other individuals.  How we get to that matters little to me.  The Federal govt of the US, in my opinion, has too much power.  For example, highway speed limits.  There is no national highway speed limit, yet the Federal govt still uses FORCE to make states fall in line.  Montana had (basically) no daytime speed limit on its highways.  The Feds didn't like it, but they couldn't do anything about it using the law.  So they threatened to withhold highway funds from Montana if they didn't get in line.  That is BS.  That, and hundreds...probably thousands of other things is why I tend to lean to the "states rights" side of things.

While in general I am not sanguine about the use of Federal money to coerce the States into taking certain actions, highway legislation isn't one of them, since it clearly falls within Congress' enumerated power "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads".

How does Montanta (or S.Carolina) picking their own speed limits harm the Post Office?

[dead0man]

One thing I can tell you is that libertarians probably do not interpret the Constitution as liberally as that. 

I'm far more Federalist than Libertarian, and I find the provision and regulation of a National Highway System to be a proper Federal function.

Oh wow, you're serious about the post office/speed limit thing?  What percentage of postal vehicles ever see the interstate? 10%  Sure, most mail probably spends some time on the interstate, but I'm guessing most of the travel time of mail is spent on rail and city streets.  And VERY little mail spends anytime on rural insterstate in the middle of Montana. 

And we're talking about the saftey of MAIL here?  Really?