the federal government did not end slavery?
the federal government did not end jim crow?
the federal government did not make the the 13th,14th, 15th, 19th, 24th 26th amendment?
you don’t think a usa federal court has ever found a state law unconstitutional?
that the federal governent has never sued a state government?
You should look up the history of Polish Commonwealth and how good it was for the peasants. It’s not at all clear that local lords are better for the people than one overlord. I think that may be true if the people have freedom of movement (even then – it’s easy for the lords to collude).
Just to play a devil’s advocate: why is the argument that the Federal gov’t owns the land that it purchased wrong?
It’s true that it purchased it from those that never owned it (whether the French gov’t or the Native tribes). But, seemingly, it has the best claim today on it – better than any other individual or organization. I.e., its ‘purchase’ of the land actually starts the period of the government’s control and homesteading of the land.
Imagine I form a corporation. Then we come to claim a land that is loosely settled by some tribes. Then we unjustly remove the tribes from the land (or whatever portions of the land they actually occupied).
After two centuries following the expulsion, however, my corporation has remained the sole owner of the land – in the sense that it has homesteaded it by controlling and developing it. No other living individual (including the descendants of the tribes) has a better claim on the individual acre of the discussed land. All the current ‘owners’ are actually renters of the land from my corporation, as per our agreement. If they corporation doesn’t own the land, neither do they. The land is ownerless and can be claimed by anyone – but then the corporation automatically claims it by having control over it.
What would be the libertarian analysis of this situation. To whom does the land belong?
federal military base wise, it was the feds who homesteaded it i would say, so a state trying to take over, or attacking, would be agressing like what happened to start the civil war. i figure the republicans are the ones who run to the federal government to have military bases built in their state, but i don’t think the state gets to takeover at whim what was paid for by all 50 states, perhaps it get’s 1/50 ownership. it’s one thing to leave and keep your own property, another to leave and claim property all for oneself that was built and owned by a union.
it would be simular as factory workers quiting and getting to keep the factory and taking ownership away from any capital provider who did not work at the factory. or one section of a group of investers quiting and then getting to keep what all the investers paid for.
Another one, this time from Robert Murphy (on FB):
Robert Murphy Are you guys seriously not getting the modest point I’m making here? What happens in 50 years when libertarians are chafing under the police state of The Free Republic of Texas and they look back longingly on the days when drones were only used for surveillance?
So, what’s the answer?
You do realize that 80% of the federal government is unconstitutional, right? There are far more “unconstitutional” federal laws than state laws.
unconstitutional laws don’t negate constitutional ones, some of the laws are constitutional and that some of the federal laws aim to protect citizens of the usa from unconstitutional laws from states.
sure the federal government has been supportive of lots of state unconstitutional laws before the fed was against them as well, that does not change some of these facts of what the federal government has acted on.
it’s not all or nothing nor is it black and white.
Actually, your premises are incorrect. The states determined who was eligible to vote. Some people didn’t like that, and then constitutional amendments were enacted to prohibit certain standards of voting ineligibility. So, no, those laws were not originally unconstitutional.
And, no, I’m not talking about the federal government supporting unconstitutional state laws. The federal government, as it currently exists, is 80% unconstitutional.
and the federal government has had to come in when states did not want to follow new amendments. there is also the 14th amendment. civil rights of the federal government banning state discrimination has had plenty of cases.
I am still interested to hear the answer to Bob Murphy’s pseudo-trolling question.
I mean, we have 27 independent states in Europe. And they have socialism on the Continent and a fascist police state in the UK.
I mean, we have 27 independent states in Europe. And they have socialism on the Continent and a fascist police state in the UK.
…which became worse in close correlation with centralization of power.
How do you live with yourself?
Good point.
Well hey. If all fifty states do secede, Washington will have to have Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands convert to statehood.
Yeah. The five states of the U.S.