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

[Scam of God]

From Earnest, self-described 'libertarian-leaner', in another thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not, personally, understand this logic. I myself have never cared a whit for the notion that says that centralized local power is inherently better and less coercive than decentralized Federal power. For example, I don't find much, if anything, wrong with the Civil Rights Act of 1964; if contravening the local hierarchies and hierophants is necessary to ensure maximum liberty to the individual, so be it.

I believe this is the one main issue that separates right-libertarians (like I imagine dead0man is) from left-libertarians, such as myself: for the right-libertarian, what is essential is transferring power from a centralized state to the local collective; whatever they do with their newfound authority afterwards matters nothings. Left-libertarians, on the other hand, desire the greatest possible freedom for the particular individual, and if it is necessary to invoke an impersonal government - right-libertarianism is the closest thing there is to an anti-statist Protestantism - so much the better for it.

In other words, it seems entirely conceivable to me that these two things are not really ideologically related at all; that right-libertarianism still seeks to empower some collective or another over the individual, regardless of its proximity to him, whereas left-libertarianism seeks the most complete practical abolishing of all such collectives possible. Perhaps, then, neither one really suits the label 'libertarianism - right-libertarianism ought rightly then be called 'localism' or 'regionalism', while left-libertarianism is more aptly described as 'individualism', 'anarcho-individualism', or 'egoism'. Both ultimately seek to destroy the Federal state; the localist in the name of his regional sympathies, the egoist for himself and his fellow individuals. The regionalist will more likely than not refuse to utilize the means of the State to its own demise; the egoist has no such qualms, for he is under no obligation of loyalty to a particular area of culture to favor that thing over the central government, but would sooner see them both destroyed. One argues, "All power to the community"; the other, "all power to the man".

That's simply my interpretation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From Earnest, self-described 'libertarian-leaner', in another thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do not, personally, understand this logic. I myself have never cared a whit for the notion that says that centralized local power is inherently better and less coercive than decentralized Federal power. For example, I don't find much, if anything, wrong with the Civil Rights Act of 1964; if contravening the local hierarchies and hierophants is necessary to ensure maximum liberty to the individual, so be it.

First of all, "I'm Ernest damnit!"   (I'm definitely not Wilde about the other spelling.)

The main advantage of decentralizing of power, is that if a particular local government is that if an individual finds that local government to be either too onerous in wielding it or to reluctant to make use of it in a manner that person would find beneficial, it is generally easier for a person to either affect what that government does or to move to a different locale with a government that better suits him than it would be on a national scale.  The assumption that national hierarchies and hierophants will always act to ensure maximum liberty to the individual is not one that can be rationally supported by a look at the historical record.

As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as stupid as private discrimination is, government laws that seek to control private acts should be subject to strict scrutiny. That would be Titles II and VII, as the rest deals with government actions.  (BTW, Title II was the provision that Goldwater opposed.)

Title II passes the strict scrutiny test for me, as securing the right to travel freely for all citizens is certainly a compelling government interest, though the inclusion of places of entertainment in the definition of "public accommodation" by Title II is stretching the boundary of compelling government interest.

Title VII with its barring of employment discrimination is more problematic.  Government interference in private provision of employment is a far more substantial infringement on the liberty of a private individual to discriminate than is Title II as it telling the employer how to use its property (i.e., the funds used to pay the employee).   This basically boils down to whether one holds that the government has (or should have depending upon whether you are talking about actual law or ideal law) the power to enforce positive rights, in this case the right to work of one's choosing, when such power would infringe upon negative rights, in this case the right to not have one's property put to a public use.

However even if one holds that under the Federal Constitution positive rights are either subordinate to negative rights, or that they are not including within the meaning of rights (certainly all of the enumerated rights are negative rights, not positive ones), the government could certainly achieve most of the effect of Title VII by making compliance with its bans on employment discrimination a condition of government contracts or subcontracts.  Since most medium to large private employers in this country (small employers with less than 25 employees aren't covered by Title VII anyway) derive a significant fraction of their revenues from supplying the government (both Federal and State) with the goods and services they need, few such employers would be willing to forgo such revenues, and of those that might be, even fewer would be willing to face the public opprobrium that such a decision would bring them.  Handling it in this fashon would be similar in function to that which the Davis-Bacon Act has on wage rates for government contracts.

[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.)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agree with dead0man that the federal government is public enemy #1 at this point. Today that means breaking federal power. Tomorrow that means breaking state power. After that is breaking local power. Practically, I think it would be easiest to devolve government into oblivion.

     Maybe I'm wrong & the solution is demolishing the state & local governments & then killing the federal behemoth. The historical examples of communist & fascist nations have taught me to fear centralized governments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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".

[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?

[Lunar]

I suppose one would have to consider whether local governments, on a balance, would be more libertarian than the federal one.  This includes the Supreme Court which lately tends to restrain government influence more than expand it, at least relative to the country's aggregate legislature's ideology, or perhaps I'm just thinking of Brown & Roe.  Beyond that, local governments could be more/less accessible or transparent.

At the very least, perhaps more localized autonomy could allow libertarian ideas, if they are indeed the correct ones, to be proven and expanded.  Other states could more easily observe California's imploding economic situation while simultaneously seeing that gay marriages haven't caused the apocalypse, for example. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

The Federal Government paid the majority of the costs of building the Interstate highways under authority of the power to establish Post Roads.  Since speed limits do affect the safety of the vehicles carrying the mails, it is a clear and obvious use of the enumerated powers of the Federal government, not one of those penumbras invoked via the Commerce Clause.  Besides maximum speed, another aspect of highway speed is the variability of speed.  Highways are generally safer if vehicles are all traveling roughly the same speed.  That's why rural interstates generally have minimum speed limits as well as maximum speed limits.

[Lunar]

That seems like a technicality more than a legitimate power.  Or at least a mail truck would have to get in an accident and thus have its ability to deliver mail be threatened first.  Otherwise it's theoretical.  How much of the mail-delivering apparatus of the federal government would be substantively threatened by high-speed highways?

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

I figured the highways were built under the commerce clause, like everything the federal government does, shows what I know. 


Should the federal government be able to limit dog size because bigger dogs threaten mailmen more than small ones?

[Ban my account ffs!]

What if you're "states rights" but hate the label "states rights" because it conjures up all sorts of unwholesome images of southern people eating unspeakable pickled pig parts?

I believe political power and involvement and participation are strongest at the local level, and that issues that can be dealt with at the local level, should be... and that the federal and state governments should only provide for funding equalization in cases where local governments make the decisions about how policy is implemented.

[Vepres]

Another benefit that I don't think has been mentioned here is that the states and federal governments check and balance each other, thereby preventing either from becoming too strong.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Should the federal government be able to limit dog size because bigger dogs threaten mailmen more than small ones?

There have been instances where the presence of what are deemed to be dangerous dogs on a property have caused mail delivery there to be suspended.  However, in general, the only reason a government (whether federal or local) should limit dog size is if it is the one paying for the dog food and/or vet bills.

[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?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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 interstate in the middle of Montana. 

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

I don't think the post office even uses the rails anymore save where that is the only feasible option.  Way too slow even by post office standards.

Besides, I don't hold with a narrow construction interpretation of the constitution.  The post office and post road clause clearly indicate a Federal role in the infrastructure of transportation and communication between the several States was envisaged by the founders.  As such the construction of highways and the regulation of those highways constructed with the use of Federal funds is a clear Federal power. Actually, if one is going to complain about unwarranted Federal expansion concerning the mails, home delivery is far more salient complaint, as that was not originally a post office function at all.

[SPC]

     I agree with dead0man that the federal government is public enemy #1 at this point. Today that means breaking federal power. Tomorrow that means breaking state power. After that is breaking local power. Practically, I think it would be easiest to devolve government into oblivion.

     Maybe I'm wrong & the solution is demolishing the state & local governments & then killing the federal behemoth. The historical examples of communist & fascist nations have taught me to fear centralized governments.

I agree 100%. Good to see some anarchsim come out in you. I agree that we should focus on more local power for many reasons. For one, the federal government is much less accountable to its citizens than state and local governments are, thus allowing the federal government to grow much larger in size than the state and local governments. Another reason, governments that rule over a smaller population and land are much less capable of meddling in other nations' affairs than a government ruling over a large population and land. Third, a bottom-up approach is more consistant with individual sovereignty than a top-down approach. If you keep on getting government down to a localer and localer level, you will eventually have individual sovereignty. However, if you keep getting government to a broader and broader dominion, you will eventually have world-government, the exact opposite of individualism. Additionally, immigration is much less of a hassle between small nations as it is between large nations. So, if you disagreed with the policies of a nation, you could just move a few miles down, rather than having to move hundreds of miles away. Another reason is that smaller nations are much more dependant on trade than large nations, and so are less likely to have an interventionist economic policy. I could keep going all day, but those are the basis reasons for individualists to prefer localism to individualism.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

     I agree with dead0man that the federal government is public enemy #1 at this point. Today that means breaking federal power. Tomorrow that means breaking state power. After that is breaking local power. Practically, I think it would be easiest to devolve government into oblivion.

     Maybe I'm wrong & the solution is demolishing the state & local governments & then killing the federal behemoth. The historical examples of communist & fascist nations have taught me to fear centralized governments.

While I'm not nearly as right as you, I agree with your premise. It bothers me that the federal government is basically sitting on the board of most major fortune 500 companies.

[Earth]

It bothers me that the federal government is basically sitting on the board of most major fortune 500 companies.

It bothers me that fortune 500 heads have made their beds in government over the past decade or so. I'm more worried about that than some vague fear of socialism.