States rights = more liberty, is a fantasy?

[Kraig]

If the mayor of my town does something fucked up, I know where he lives, I know his family. I can walk up to the fuck at walmart and choke him if he tries to tax me.
The pricks in DC are untouchable to me.
There in lies the difference.
A government that can be held accountable, a government that can't be held accountable.
The one that can't be held accountable is going to be tyrannical with enough power.

well the local cops in this town are untouchable to me too

 

[torchbearer]

well the local cops in this town are untouchable to me too

cops are nothing compared to the U.S. military.
I have a better chance at changing my local laws than any other level of government.
If the only laws your local cops could enforce are the ones your local government made, you'd have more control over what those power freaks get to do under the guise of uniform.

 

[torchbearer]

"When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson

I think what I'm getting at is best said the way Jefferson stated it.
He is a decentralist, so is Daniel Hannan.
They both understand the balance that is required to have both a secure environment against mob destruction of rights and individual liberty.

 

[MPN]

Someone may have touched on this already, but the whole premise here is a bit deceiving.

Government, at all levels, can be oppressive. There are many schools of thought with authors who shed light on the oppression of the individual.

Here is how I, personally, would respond to his post,

As for states' rights, supporting that position in the U.S. is very curious. Practically the ONLY thing it has been used for in the past is the resistance of civil rights.

The south used states' rights to support continuing slavery, to support Jim Crow laws, and to resist federal desegregation. Strom Thurmond called his white supremacist party the "States' Rights Party".

The idea that states' rights = more liberty is a fantasy. The OPPOSITE has been the case throughout history.

First of all, the notion of states rights is not a “position”. States Rights are one of many products derived in the principles outlined by many avid political theorists and thinkers of the American Revolutionary period. This rough theory and general notion of governance is predominantly referred to as Federalism (or American Federalism).

The historical nomenclature of ‘states rights’ is long and broad. To say the concept of individual sovereignty at the collective state level has only OPPRESSED the individual is naïve.

 

[Kraig]

Someone may have touched on this already, but the whole premise here is a bit deceiving.

Government, at all levels, can be oppressive. There are many schools of thought with authors who shed light on the oppression of the individual.

Here is how I, personally, would respond to his post,



First of all, the notion of states rights is not a “position”. States Rights are one of many products derived in the principles outlined by many avid political theorists and thinkers of the American Revolutionary period. This rough theory and general notion of governance is predominantly referred to as Federalism (or American Federalism).

The historical nomenclature of ‘states rights’ is long and broad. To say the concept of individual sovereignty at the collective state level has only OPPRESSED the individual is naïve.

Who exactly thought if "states rights" in this way? It seems to me it was more the middle point that was reached after bargaining, rather then the ideal of any one person.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

well the local cops in this town are untouchable to me too

so were these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

 

[Kraig]

so were these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMinn_County_War

It's a nice story but once my ass is on the line no one is going to care. The police will be able to do what they want with me. Even if I did try to fight back there are too many of them, and ultimately my fellow citizens just won't care.

 

[Original_Intent]

It's a nice story but once my ass is on the line no one is going to care. The police will be able to do what they want with me. Even if I did try to fight back there are too many of them, and ultimately my fellow citizens just won't care.

Yep. 57 guys with "no chance" told the entire British Empire where to stick it.

When they said "Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor" they literally expected that was exactly what they were sacrificing.

 

[MPN]

Who exactly thought if "states rights" in this way? It seems to me it was more the middle point that was reached after bargaining, rather then the ideal of any one person.

In what way?

I guess I don’t really understand the question.

If you are asking me to identify a specific name from the time period, I’d be hard pressed to do so. Federalism was indeed a compromise.

 

[nobody's_hero]

State-by-state governing by the people opens up a full-blown competition. States that adopt more freedom-friendly laws will theoretically flourish, and those which adopt tyrannical laws will see businesses and educated families move away to other more tolerable states. (Which is why I find things like the Free State project interesting).

Right now, we have no competition.

Imagine how boring a Nascar race would be if every racer's engine was governed at 10 Miles per hour. (That's basically what happens when the Federal Government throws blanket laws over the union).

EDIT: The U.S. Constitution also guarantees to every state a republican form of Government. A big centralized government is far from a republic. (Article 4, section 4)

 

[Kraig]

In what way?

I guess I don’t really understand the question.

If you are asking me to identify a specific name from the time period, I’d be hard pressed to do so. Federalism was indeed a compromise.

My point exactly.