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

By: thesjdude

thesjdude — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:32:45 +0000

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.

By: WaynethX

WaynethX — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:54:43 +0000

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.

By: shane

shane — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:51:59 +0000

This begs a few questions:

If we, as individuals, can't be trusted to rule ourselves, how can we trust that strangers (how many of your so-called govt. representatives do you actually KNOW?) will rule over us any better?

Isn't govt run by individuals similar to us?

Would YOU murder your neighbor w/o govt?

I wouldn't.

In fact, most people I know have no interest in murdering anyone.

This is the problem: far too many, while considering themselves sane/good people, assume everyone else is insane/bad.

I assume the vast majority of society would be the same, and the ones who're gonna murder…will…govt or no.

There are just some "bad seeds" who exist and nothing will ever change this. Creating an organization that has a monopoly on initiatory violence is not the answer.

Throughout history it has been GOVERNMENT which has perpetrated the worst atrocities. In the 20th century alone govts were responsible for the deaths of 100's of MILLIONS…

By: Change begins by looking into the mirror……. « Mrcauser’s Weblog

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:48:41 +0000

[...] Glenn Beck, Statesâ€™ Rights, and the Myth of the Libertarian Dictator | Tenth Amendment C… It is precisely because ignorant or malicious voters so often support government-sponsored looting of their neighbors that decentralized power is critical. Human beings are flawed, and even with the best of intentions may engage in behavior that is irrational or dishonest. However, the smaller the geographic or economic area that can be affected by a single misguided administration or policy, the more likely it is that enough citizens can be educated and motivated to fix the problem. [...]

By: @twitimbo

@twitimbo — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:24:48 +0000

Government is a necessary evil because we can't live in a 'free society'. This state of a society without a govt should be the goal but until God makes us perfect thus incapable of murdering our neighbors then we will always need something to restrain our behavior.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:35:49 +0000

"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. "

This is not true if I understand what your saying correctly.
States only have to retain a "republican form of government", which is to say a government of laws not men, and not have any title of nobility, or things like that. Beyond that the exact organization of the Republican government of a State is relatively wide open. Most States simply choose to replicate the basic 3 branch bicameral legislator system. Although the Federal Court in the early 1960's Striped the States effectively of their bicameral legislators by forcing the State senate to be effectively a mirror of the State house, rather then the regional representation parallel of the U.S. Senate.

This is how big urban political machines such as in Chicago, Illinois were able to take over the Illinois state government and uses the same to steal from the rest of the state.

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 06:02:55 +0000

You’re going to have to forgive the phrase "State's rights", Your right State Governments have no more rights in their own right then does the Federal government, only the people have rights, and only the people can cede to the state and federal government thou their respective constitution certain limited powers restricting some of their rights.

To that end the phrase "State's rights" is about specifying the usurpations of the Federal Government of the rights of the people not granted to it in the Federal Constitution, in contrast to just the usurpations of the State governments which is a separate and State specific set of issues.

By: Will May

Will May — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:23:02 +0000

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? ; )

By: Ice

Ice — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:47:04 +0000

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.

By: @twitimbo

@twitimbo — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:22:03 +0000

I think that if we want real change in washington we are going to have to do it at the state level and to make our state's governments more powerful we have to get rid of the 17th amendment. This way our locally elected leaders can pick people that represent the wishes of the state governments thus giving states more power in the federal government.