Glenn Beck, States’ Rights, and the Myth of the Libertarian Dictator

Interesting comments and arguments by all. My only comment, purely from a "consumer of government" point of view is this: If there are 50 states with varying degrees of things I like or dislike, and I can freely choose to live in any of them, then I can choose the one I feel best suits my ideas of being "the best" for me. Among our many problems today is that there is little difference between the States due to overarching Federal control. Perhaps is some states offered what most would consider a goodly amount of Freedom, their population would swell and so would their fortunes. Which states would prefer less? And if they did, who would care? Statists and welfare suckers could try to finance their own utopias while the rest of us could be free of them as burdens. I don't know if you can label what I've described in any way, but purely as a consumer of government, this scenario is what I would prefer to what we presently have.

Wrong. The point of self-government and the Bill of Rights is that the individual is the ultimate sovereign. The majority has no more authority to violate the individual's natural rights using state government than using federal government. Glenn Beck is a child in a grown up body.

Josh--
Your article here reminds me of the concepts being batted around at Let A Thousand Nations Bloom (which I like a lot, so that's a compliment).

And I've run into exactly this argument from many NH libertarians. It'll be nice to have a well-written article to throw back at them. So thanks.

Both Josh and Michael--
When are you going to move to New Hampshire and help us secede? ; )

The form of government we have is that not even the States would be allowed to become tyrannical. The States have the duty to interpose when the Federal government runs afoul of its delegated powers. And likewise, the Federal government is properly the place for citizens of a State to seek redress when the State runs afoul of its own Constitutional limits. Anyone that has read the writings of the founding fathers would know this system of checks and balances is how the system was designed.

Of course, each State also has the right to abolish its Constitution and secede from the union. The "pact" is that for the State to belong to the union it must operate under a Constitution which mimics the Constitution for the united States of America.

Under these circumstances, please explain how it would be possible for any state to become tyrannical (without abolishing their Constitution and seceding from the union)... outside of the entire Federal government and all the states of the union using force of arms to impose such rule upon The People.

The greatest danger to liberty is from those who would tell us what our rights should be. When their minds change, so do our rights then vanish. On the contrary, a judiciary that limited itself to ruling what the actual Constitution says our rights are would quickly choke off the rampant, cancer-like growth and spread of government. If we want our liberty, we should focus our attention on the source of the problem, not on the symptoms it has unleashed.

Furthermore, neither the presidency nor Congress has been liberty's greatest foe. Rather, the courts are the prime culprit. The Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence over the last century has opened the door to more invasive tyranny than the Framers could ever have imagined. Although there have been a handful of rulings recognizing that the Tenth Amendment has not been extinguished, by and large our judiciary - incidentally, the only unelected branch of the government - has all but granted Washington carte blanche to do whatever it wants.

To combat this, we need to fight for justices who recognize that the government is one of limited powers. They must understand that the Constitution is a dead - not living - document. It does not breathe. It does not evolve. That's why the amendment process was create

Pure and absolute liberty can only exist in the state of nature. Even a government limited to safeguarding just our negative rights must make affirmative demands on its people. So while we can complain about state laws that impinge on liberty, our only alternative to democratically operated state governments is anarchy. While some may claim to desire such an environment, I remain dubious as to the endurance of that insistence once placed in it. Besides, surely even libertarians must agree that limitations on a person's liberty can be legitimate when he freely chose such limitations. (I hope so, or else contract law, among other things, goes out the window.)

Most of the commentary I've read on this post misses what I take to be the most salient criticism of it. Namely, that all of this speculation is bootless unless it is grounded in the political system we have now. We must deal with the facts on the ground if we are to advance the cause of personal liberty.

Whether we like it or not, the United States Constitution reserves nigh-unlimited police power to each state, subject only to enumerated federal limitations. The Framers endowed the states with this power not because they wanted or envisioned a series of micro-tyrannies, but because they realized that sovereign power must be vested somewhere if there is to be a union of Americans. They created this system against a backdrop of already existing - and already locally, constitutionally bound - state sovereignty. In other words, they were more skeptical of the body politic's ability to reign in the excesses of a distant, imperial-ish federal government than its ability to do the same with more proximate state governments.

I just took another read and it seems the author is saying that states can do whatever they want.

I disagree with the author. The whole argument about the tenth amendment is that whatever power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states (unless it is expressly prohibited) so a state that wishes to enact one of those unlisted powers may do so whether you think it is right or wrong. The beauty of it is that if a state like Mass. votes for statewide UHC (which they did) I am protected from that and state governments tend to not be little dictators when they know that people can leave and be free of their control. Each state government knows that they do not have absolute control over any individual so they tend to enact laws that respects their wishes.

Of course that's correct. But what we're talking about here is what is CONSTITUTIONAL. Just because something is constitutional, does not mean I think it's a good thing. Socialized healthcare, for example, is acceptable for states to enact under the constitution, even though I find it to be reprehensible. If you oppose that in your state, you're supposed to work through your own local government to stop it from happening.

The founders created a brilliant system in that they recognized that a large land mass would always have people of widely varying belief systems - politically, economically, religiously, etc.

The only way to get all these different viewpoints to live in peace is to ensure that there is NOT a one-size-fits all solution for everything.

The absolute worst way to advocate for liberty is to do what many so-called libertarians do today - they want to somehow use the force of government (through legislation or their monopoly court system) have the entire nation follow a libertarian philosophy. They never seem to recognize that doing so only encourages their opposition to do just the same. And the absolute fact of the matter is this - the opposition is winning, hands down.

While I often find myself to agree with libertarians on individual issues and opposition to the state (and am generally more of a free-marketeer than most), I will always disagree with a universal, or top-down solution to the problem.

Even if that would work – it would only last for a short time, as the statists would certainly do everything in their power to get control of government in the future.

Now, those that simply teach about the principles of liberty without advocating government force to back it up, they’re my kindred spirits. But that might be another discussion...

Of course that's correct. But what we're talking about here is what is CONSTITUTIONAL. Just because something is constitutional, does not mean I think it's a good thing. Socialized healthcare, for example, is acceptable for states to enact under the constitution, even though I find it to be reprehensible. If you oppose that in your state, you're supposed to work through your own local government to stop it from happening.

The founders created a brilliant system in that they recognized that a large land mass would always have people of widely varying belief systems - politically, economically, religiously, etc.

The only way to get all these different viewpoints to live in peace is to ensure that there is NOT a one-size-fits all solution for everything.

The absolute worst way to advocate for liberty is to do what many so-called libertarians do today - they want to somehow use the force of government (through legislation or their monopoly court system) have the entire nation follow a libertarian philosophy. They never seem to recognize that doing so only encourages their opposition to do just the same. And the absolute fact of the matter is this - the opposition is winning, hands down.

While I often find myself to agree with libertarians on individual issues and opposition to the state (and am generally more of a free-marketeer than most), I will always disagree with a universal, or top-down solution to the problem.

Even if that would work – it would only last for a short time, as the statists would certainly do everything in their power to get control of government in the future.

Now, those that simply teach about the principles of liberty without advocating government force to back it up, they’re my kindred spirits. But that might be another discussion...

Live Oaks is right. It doesn't matter where the tyranny comes from. It's still tyranny.

States do not have rights.

I won't give you any long books to read but... Read the DofI. The purpose of all government is to protect the rights of the individual. We organize/divide government powers in a way that seems most likely to protect our rights. Whenever any form or division of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

Further, read the 9th and 14th amendments. Our rights are not limited by the Constitution and the States are not permitted to violate the rights of the individual.

While it may be better to divide powers offensive to individual liberty (e.g., universal health care, drug laws, etc.) than centralize them it is better still that we eliminate the power. And there is certainly no right to such powers.

Please pardon the multiple posts. I should also clarify here that by and large I have been referring to the Libertarian Party (capital "L"), not necessarily pure libertarian (small "L") philosophy.

Any political party has to make SOME compromises, and the Libertarian Party has decided that its goal should be Constitutionalism, as that represents a vastly greater state of Liberty than currently exists. As far as libertarian ideals (small "L"), they are perhaps not so much different from those of the Objectivists, in principle... they just usually do not adopt such "holier than thou" moral attitudes about it.

I would further like to point out that "... the view of the current 'libertarians' and social Darwinist that the ideal of absolute liberty will come slowly and gradually" is also a myth, as applied to Libertarians.

On the contrary: a great many Libertarians I know are guilty of the misconception that an ideal Libertarian world is possible right this instant, if only people would bother to understand the principles behind it. In fact, as a group I consider it to be the Libertarians' most common failing as far as realism is concerned. Unfortunately, reality is that people do not change instantly, or allow change to come instantly, no matter how hard Libertarians or anyone else might try.

The reality is that all Libertarians you see that are in, or who have approached being in, real positions of political power in recent years want to end the Fed NOW. They want to end the income tax and chop the Federal government back down to a Constitutional body NOW. They don't want to wait, or to do it gradually, or to make small reforms. None of those people of whom I am aware have any "gradual" approach to Liberty at all. Not one.

I do admit that Libertarians are Constitutionalists, and have not tried to extend their core principles to "absolute" freedom, as perhaps the Objectivists do. And again I believe that is realistic: while "absolute" freedom may be a noble eventual goal, it does not allow even a Constitution. It is a bit too anarchistic to be practical any time soon.

I have few arguments with Mr. Eboch's statements except for one fundamental error: the people to whom he is referring are, with few exceptions, not Libertarians.

From the very beginning, he quotes the Live Oaks blog. If you follow that link you can easily see, at the very top of the page, a quote from Ayn Rand, indicating that Live Oaks is not "Libertarian" at all, but Objectivist. They are very different parties, with some different principles, at odds fundamentally, and if Mr. Eboch does not know the difference he should not be expounding on the subject.

Then, without once indicating that he is changing to whom he is referring, he continues to belittle "Libertarians" for perceived values that, in fact, Libertarians do not believe in.

I, for one among many, am very tired of seeing Libertarians being berated for ideals that belong not to them, but to others with completely different views. It is a very misunderstood party, and Mr. Eboch is doing little here but spreading that misunderstanding. Shame.

The core, the root principle, of Libertarian philosophy is Constitutionalism. And that Constitutionalism includes the Tenth Amendment. I admit that some Libertarians misunderstand some of the concepts of the Constitution, and I am sure that some of those people also misunderstand the role of the Constitution and the Federal government in contrast to the States. But I am fairly certain that if you checked, you would find that a significantly higher percentage of Libertarians understand the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and what they stand for, than the general populace, and by those I mean both "liberals" and "conservatives".

By the way, I should also correct a common misconception: even though Libertarians are often characterized as "conservative, in fact they are neither "liberal" or "conservative". If you believe that they are, you have grossly misunderstood one of the basic principles of Libertarianism. You can read about that principle in this article in Wikipedia, among other places. The basic concept was first put forth by political scientist David Nolan in 1969. If you read that article, you will see that Libertarianism is not even on the same axis as liberal and conservative, but rather on a completely separate axis, at the opposite end from "Authoritarian" or "Statist".

In summary, Mr. Eboch's article has some good things to say, unfortunately he is not at all familiar with the people he is pretending to say them about. If he were, he would be putting different labels on his statements. And I strongly suggest he do so in the future.

All in all, I would have to say that this is one of the more ignorant articles I have seen put forth here. It simply does not meet the usual standards of the Tenth Amendment blog.

A very good and well written point Josh Eboch!

I commend you! You are absolute correct, although it may be simpler to point out to such people that the States have constitutions too, which are no more or less binding the the federal Constitution in protecting the rights of the people of the states from too much state government.

The 10th amendment does not render those Constitutions mute.

With the concept of each state making its own laws that could grant liberty, or remove it, the beauty of the 10th is that it forces that privilege on the states, and the people living in them would have to live with it, or they could move to another state that has laws more in line with the values they hold.

It would not be FORCED upon all 50 states, as it is from the Federal level. The people are then left with no out from a tyrannical government, except to work the political process to correct it, or in the extreme case, revolt.

Lou
GA 10th

Josh - this "comment" may ramble a tad - but I am both OLD and running a high fever ... but felt that comments were in order - and before I forget what I wanted to say - first, your piece is excellent.
Regarding Glenn Beck - His strength is that he seems to have been one of an number of people who have been instrumental in finally waking many people from a stupor, a fantasy world of thinking that freedom comes with an auto pilot.
You state that "Glenn Beck is very confused about some aspects of liberty and federalism (particularly involving Abraham Lincoln)," Well, I would agree but would also argue that, after close to 30 years of studying the various periods of human history, intently reading not only what has been written about each - but also what the writes IN each period thought and said (wrote) - that your statement could well reply to each and everyone of us. (and I most certainly include myself in that statement) - But there is something in what Beck say - what you write - and even the likes of Carl Marx - from one side of the spectrum to the other, that I marvel at, that we - as a species - have this wonder ability to wonder and to think. In all my decades of reading and attempting to understand most every "ism" and or ""cracy " out there, I have found most all contain what I think is the "best of man" - that is in theory, on paper or parchment. However, to me, once touch by human hands .... all bets are off. Cynical, I know - but hey - I am old, it is one of the perks of old age.
You write - "Based on what we know about the free market, it is simply not credible to claim that decentralizing the federal government’s current power monopoly through the Tenth Amendment would turn America into 50 isolated tyrannies or fiefdoms." So very well put.
"In reality, spurred on by the information revolution, a return to robust federalism would quickly unleash the cleansing forces of market competition on our stagnant political economy. " -- with this statement, I would love to agree, but only if we were to change our method of studying history. By that I mean we repeat the mistakes because we fail to see the patterns that cause "history" - instead we fixate on the characters on the stage at that moment in time.
I continue to be struck with the similarity of patterns between Ancient Roman and the United State - to the point where I believe that like the great Roman civilization, we too can be divided into distinct entities - with Rome it was the Republic (lasting about 237 years) and the Empire(about 203 years) - with the United States it to was the Republic (1790 - 1901-with Teddy Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency following the death of William McKinley ) and its present incarnation as more a social democracy under the guidance of the progressive school of thought.
It was under the Republic that the notion of "the free market" was allowed to operate and flourish - since it has been under assault and the net result, in my opinion, is that it can be argued that the United States reached it pinnacle in the late 1800's - early 1900's. Many would also argue (and I am included in this camp) that it is this year - 1913 that perhaps one day, will be identified by historians as the beginning of our collapse.
But again, Josh - what a fantastic piece you wrote.
To barndooropen - your closing line - "People are stupid. They deserve everything they got coming...." brought to mind an insight of Etienne de la Boétie contained in his Discourse of Voluntary Servitude - written in 1552, that every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance. In short, the bulk of the people themselves, for whatever reason, acquiesce in their own subjection. Except that you managed to cull it down to 8 words.
Finally to Mike Baker - if you don't think you could spend more than a few minutes in the same room with Beck - I don't think you'd last much more than a minute in the same room without it producing a similar result - for this reason - as you most probably observed by reading the above - I have always - it seems to me - have had this tendency to 1) Ramble and 2) space out .... not in the middle of a thought - no, better than that - I have this ability to space out in the middle of a word!!! But seriously, your thought about provoking thought is WELL TAKEN.

"It often takes more than well-reasoned theory to change someone’s mind, and it always takes power to impose someone’s will, even if that will is liberty."
Any self respecting libertarian should stop reading this misguided article after finishing that statement. Should the author (sic) want to argue libertarian principles, it is strongly advised that he or she drops the aura of statism that reeks from their writings.
To start seeing it from the libertarian perspective, I suggest the "author" reada, and more importantly comprehends (I know I'm shooting for the stars here) M.N.Rothbard's "For a New Liberty", especially the chapter 3, in which he argues the libertarian view of anyone, especially the State, imposing their will upon anyone else.
Until then, there can not be any civil discourse between libertarians and the cancer of "conservatives" that seems to have assimilated some libertarian ideals in order to score political points.

In Liberty!

I don't think I could spend more than a few minutes in the same room with G. Beck, but his disection of Progressivism is valid and valuable. Taking the tenth ammendment to an illogical, extreme example does no harm, just provokes thought. No harm, no foul. Harm would come from a circular firing squad.

I thought from the headline that this was going to be a praise fest for Glenn, but I was surprised by the point of the article, and I agree.

People who are afraid of greed, corruption, and despotism at the local level, want some all powerful force to prevent that from happening, hence they enable a bloated, greedy, corrupt, despotic government at some higher level.

Then end up with both. They get screwed locally and federally.

People are stupid. They deserve everything they got coming. Except for logical, individualistic liberty lovers.