Originally
posted at Last Free Voice. It may or may not have something to do with
this.
The following is published with the permission of the author, Steve Kubby. Steve Kubby is, of course, a highly respected longtime Libertarian activist, a former candidate for Governor of California, and a popular 2008 Libertarian presidential candidate.
“States Rights†is an Anti-Libertarian Concept
By Steve Kubby
The concept of “FEDERALISM†is properly used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the federal government and the states.
In contrast, the term “STATES’ RIGHTS†is a fraudulent and profoundly ANTI-Libertarian concept that has no other purpose but to deceive and rob us of our natural, inalienable, inseparable, non-transferable rights as human beings.
The Ninth Amendment says: “The numeration in the Constitution, of certain RIGHTS, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
In other words, just because the Constitution doesn’t mention a particular right, that doesn’t mean we don’t have that right — and those RIGHTS are retained by the PEOPLE, not the State or the Federal Government.
The Tenth Amendment says: “The POWERS not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â€
States and governments have POWERS, but not RIGHTS. Only people can have rights. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were conceived and written to limit government, not allow it to usurp our rights through some insipid oxymoron like “States’ Rights.â€
Most, if not all, people refer to States’ Rights as Federalism and vice-versa. States’ Rights/Federalism is protection of liberty and division of government–which is very libertarian.
There’s a difference. See discussion at
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bob-barr-tells-america-what-libertarian-means/#comment-24002
Oops – I meant
‘
http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bob-barr-tells-america-what-libertarian-means/
I used the two terms interchangeably as well, until I was helpfully informed that I was a racist, homophobic bigot for doing so. Glad I dodged that bullet.
I agree that “states’ rights” is a poor choice of words. States do not have rights. Furthermore, it has been used as racist code.
However, far too many “libertarians” are actually opposed to decentralism/federalism. I think the overwhelming support for this Heller decision demonstrates that. Yes, D.C. is not a state, but the implication is clear — by way of the “incorporation doctrine” and the non-ratified 14th amendment, the federal government can force states into obeying the second amendment, which was never intended to apply to the states.
There is a right to keep and bear arms and there is a right to free speech, etc. But the federal government is not the one to enforce these rights against incursions by the states. These rights do not come from the Constitution; they’re inherent, and it is up to the people to assert them, not to look to D.C. for protection.
The Non-ratified 14th Amendment?
GE, you cut directly to the chase, take the lead, but end up crossing the starting line, instead of finishing the race.
However you do serve to remind, why persons who loudly attempt to justify their political world-view only upon “Original Intent”, are playing a Machiavellian strategy in an effort to avoid superseding text, that is blocking their intended path down a coercive road.
It is an artful attempt to inflame the citizenry’s natural mistrust for politicians, served up as misdirection using soap boxes and megaphones, while the people’s liberty gets handed off in back-alley chicanery to good ole boy tin-horn tyrannical pols, so lame they couldn’t get electecd to a Federal Office.
If people just think clearly about what is being asserted: that for some strange illogical reason, it is a bad thing to chain and muzzle individual state leviathans, to place a steel cage between them and our liberties. Just what the hell is wrong with restraining ALL Governmental entities in America far away from anyplace their ravening maws and grubby paws could get a hold of our birthrights?
Kubby for the most part correct, because when states’ rights are asserted, it is generally motivated with a powermongrelised vision of inherent righteousness in their use of force to restrain others’ private acts , which they find personally offensive, or in the case of contemporary conservatives, they believe will result in the loss of control over consciously projected self-repressive methods at a most unpropitious time, and they will suddenly begin to do the soft-shoe routine in a public restroom facility.
I don’t recall anyone ever laying down a states’ rights riff when discussing eminent domain.
Anyone who claims to be a friend of liberty, should be clamoring for a full incorporation of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights to aid in the proper bounding of local governments.
“I don’t recall anyone ever laying down a states’ rights riff when discussing eminent domain.”
Has the federal government ever really challenged the power of states to impose eminent domain?
pdsa – The notion of calling in the federal government to defend an individual’s rights against infringement by state or local government is the most unlibertarian thing I can imagine. Why not call in the U.N. or the E.U. while you’re at it?
The 14th amendment was not ratified, and even if it were, it would have been the worst amendment ever — worse even than the 16th and 17th.
I do not support the federal government preventing states from practicing socialism. I support the people rising up against tyrannical government at all levels.
The logic of pdsa is the same as the world governmentalist. Should the U.N. send troops into small towns to “defend” the rights of individuals adversely affected by local legislation?
I support the right of individuals to do any and everything that does not involve the initiation of force.
I do NOT support a federal government strong enough to be the God-like entity pdsa and the Statotarians want it to be.
So we have a”be like us or else ” libertarian? That’s original. Legalized meth in your town whether you like it or not because we said so from Washington.
Without states rights there would be no medical marijuana and Steve Kubby would not have a case.
I am happy to agree with G.E. There is no logical limit to the universalists who reject decentralization. By what logic do you stop at the borders of the U.S. then? This argument inevitably leads to a justification for world government.
Governments will always be restricting something. The question is who do you want doing the restricting? A far off massively empowered leviathan state or localities that are closer and more answerable to the people. This is the government of human scale.
Those who argue that they don’t want any governments anywhere restricting anything are unserious Utopians.
I don’t want governments anywhere restricting anything but the initiation of force.
However, I do not deny the right of individuals to establish their own governments that restrict whatever they want. If government is local, then dissenters can easily pick up and move away.
The idea that an all-powerful Godvernment that can defend you against local tyranny is just so absurd, words can barely come to mind to describe its ridiculousness. Here we have the American Empire, quite possibly the most evil entity to ever exist on the face of the Earth, and you want it to defend you against your township trustees?
“The idea that an all-powerful Godvernment that can defend you against local tyranny is just so absurd, words can barely come to mind to describe its ridiculousness.”
Agreed.
Did Red and Ge just agree?…..TWICE?
It happens.
Red and I agree on a lot. We just disagree on some things very strongly.
This case is somewhat unique because we agree for largely the same reasons. Normally, our reasoning is totally different.
But of course, we are not in perfect harmony here, either. Red does not believe in the concept of “rights.” I do. I do believe in an absolute right to gun ownership and non-aggressive use. I just don’t trust a large government to “defend” my right against a smaller one. I don’t think I have the right to tell my neighbors what kind of laws they choose to live under.
These “universalists” are really just left-liberal centralists. There is no more constitutional (originalist, at least) authority for the federal government to enforce the 2nd Amendment in Michigan than there is for it to do so in Beijing. Should we invade China if they pass anti-gun laws? Imposing restrictions on the states is no different than invading them, as it is the ultimate threat for disobedience, just as imprisonment is the threat behind non-payment of taxation.
@ Fred Church Ortiz-
It is trivial to prove that there was never an original intent by the Constitution’s Founders to place all forms of private property ownership up onto the rarefied plane of Natural Rights. Only a small subset of all type3s of private property ownership are Natural Rights, and they are the property a human directly utilises in the day to day functioning of their lives. All other forms of ownership are derived from the state.
I am a social democrat so perhaps I am not as
qualified as many people hear to comment
about States rights. It seems to me however,
that if libertarian’s hinge is the sovereignity of
individual liberty above all, than states’ rights is
an essentially fundamentalist concept. And, like
most fundamentalist tenets, it hews to the letter
of its doctrine while ignoring its spirit. While it is
true that decentralized federal power would
reduce the overall cost and size of government,
it would in effect quash personal freedom by
allowing unlimited power to state
AUTHORITIES to create irrational, liberticidal
laws. This would leave the individual with little
choice but to flee to another state, which by be a
considerable distance away. If such people have
humble means, this could be a grueling, health-
taxing, emotionally/psychologically draining,
and quite possibly deadly undertaking, as the
European migrations to the U.S. and elsewhere
throughout history bear out. As G.E.
mentioned, states’ rights has been
used in the past as a transparent excuse for
racism (e.g, George Wallace’s Alabama). It has
been used to pollute education (the Scopes
trial), and assault religious and individual
freedom (the recent Texican invasion of the
FDLS in Texas, abortion laws prior to Roe
v.Wade).
Therefore, true libertarianism dictates (in my
opinion) the State has do nothing save protect
the citizen’s “inalienable rights” not only from
individual and mob force, but from kangaroo
government aggression as well.