NationStates Jolt Archive

I pose a dillema for my fellow libertarians:

Keeping in tune with our ideals, we would seek to have our positions on various issues implemented. That means decriminalizing drugs, fewer gun laws, etc.

At the same time we also advocate states' rights at any and all given opportunities.

HOWEVER, even once we get rid of all those laws on the Federal level, there will undoubtedly be a time where those positions clash with the outcone brought about by states' rights. So I ask you this question: would you be willing to let the states go ahead with how they vote on an issue, or would you rather exercise the Feds' power and effectively force the libertarian agenda on them?

In all honesty I would let the states go ahead with how they want to vote on that issue.

I pose a dillema for my fellow libertarians:

Keeping in tune with our ideals, we would seek to have our positions on various issues implemented. That means decriminalizing drugs, fewer gun laws, etc.

At the same time we also advocate states' rights at any and all given opportunities.

HOWEVER, even once we get rid of all those laws on the Federal level, there will undoubtedly be a time where those positions clash with the outcone brought about by states' rights. So I ask you this question: would you be willing to let the states go ahead with how they vote on an issue, or would you rather exercise the Feds' power and effectively force the libertarian agenda on them?

In all honesty I would let the states go ahead with how they want to vote on that issue.
I would absolutely let the States do what they wanted - then move somewhere that didn't want to restrict my right to live peacably.

Try this on for size: Free State Project (http://freestateproject.org/)

or maybe this one: Free State Wyoming (http://www.freestatewyoming.org/)

As long as the sissified nanny-staters don't try to run my life, I won't try to run theirs.

So I ask you this question: would you be willing to let the states go ahead with how they vote on an issue, or would you rather exercise the Feds' power and effectively force the libertarian agenda on them?


The second option sounds rather self-contradictory to me. How can you force someone to be free?

Judicial review by a Supreme Court that adheres to libertarian principles should be enough. And it is my opinion that, in general, the Supreme Court has been the most libertarian of our institutions. How ironic is it that the one body which (usually) defends liberties is the one which operates outside of the democratic process?

This is easy SP: State'a rights should have precedence.

This is easy SP: State's rights should have precedence.
By all means, I agree. I just remember reading somewhere that it is not only a issue for us on what position we take, but *how* we implement it. And that it would make good discusssion

By all means, I agree. I just remember reading somewhere that it is not only a issue for us on what position we take, but *how* we implement it. And that it would make good discusssion
Ha-ha... Let's find those with hidden authoritarian tendencies among us.. and... and.. well, I guess let them think whatever they wish to. :D

Ha-ha... Let's find those with hidden authoritarian tendencies among us.. and... and.. well, I guess let them think whatever they wish to. :D
I absolutely have Authoritarian tendancies. That's why I run the Libertarian Police State HQ.

The only thing (except acts of non-defensive violence) you are not allowed to do is restrict another's ability to peacably live/do what he wants.

You'll disappear for that. :D

Don't exercise the Fed's power. Allow the states to act as they wish, that would impede on their right to choose.

A very UScentric discussion. What about non federal countries like the UK. Where there are no 'state laws' where does the centralised power devolve to. Individual cities? Probably.

City limits become something meaningful again.

A very UScentric discussion. What about non federal countries like the UK. Where there are no 'state laws' where does the centralised power devolve to. Individual cities? Probably.

City limits become something meaningful again.
So, would decisions be left to the individual cities or by the central government?

States' rights.

On that note, I've always been curious what the Libertarian stance is on the Civil War. Should the states have been allowed to secede?

I think that the states should be allowed to vote how they want, but where state legislation conflicts with Federal legislation the state legislation is invalid, but only as far as it conflicts with the Federal legislation. The federal Legislature should only be allowed to pass legislation over riding the states in pre-agreed areas of policy, like foreign affairs.

My problem is that local government is still government. What if all states voted in favour of authoritarian measures? Anyway, people who already live in a certain area shouldn't have to uproot themselves and move because the local government feels like being too authoritarian. Libertarianism across the board is better in my opinion.