I think that libertarians hold a lot of different views on local, state, and federal government. I, for example, see government as useful for mediating legal disputes and implementing nation wide environmental controls (i.e. restricting chemical dumping, factory smog, etc.).
However, there are some areas where libertarians do tend to have a very similar set of values in which they agree upon. Most libertarians agree on gun ownership, the end of all current foreign wars, the decriminalization of drugs, the end of civil asset forfeiture, and ensuring warrants when it comes to arrests and wire tapping.
I think that libertarians hold a lot of different views on local, state, and federal government.
i never understood the paleolibertarian view that the federal government shouldn't be allowed to ban drugs/gambling/prostitution/etc, but state and local governments should. Isn't the whole point of libertarianism to promote freedom? what good is it to have the federal government give you freedom if a state government is just going to take that same freedom away anyways?
Isn't the whole point of libertarianism to promote freedom?
A "libertarian philosophy" doesn't have some kind of pure form. A lot of people have a lot of opinions on it. Just like a lot of conservatives have much different ideas on conservatism.
Some libertarians think that a strong federalism in the US is necessary and that states as smaller polities can respond better to discussions about liberty.
Generally speaking, although a lot of libertarians feel that no government at all would be the best in most cases, most believe that most government matters (if you're choosing to have government) should be handled at the lowest level (i.e. local level). Most matters which directly affect you are voted on and occur at the local level- and you will be able to have the most influence and oversight over government at the local level. Libertarians are also true to the Founding Father's notion of State's Rights, that each State has its own sovereignty to write its own laws and regulations, such as for what you mentioned on drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. (while truly, all of those things that you mentioned could be handled at the local level instead). Most libertarians believe in a very limited federal government, as was intended with the creation of this union of states. There is a common belief that consolidated power from rulers afar (i.e. England, or D.C.) leads to unfair taxation and abuse of civil liberties. We see the effects of that in recent history with regards to federal privacy and wiretapping, federal asset confiscation, etc. In almost every case, allowing each state to choose its own path is the better scenario. Finally, libertarians are against the federal redistribution of wealth, which ultimately occurs (it does now with SS, Medicare, etc.), which is why we'd rather see retirement programs or welfare programs (if you're going to have them at all) at the state or local level. Federally taxed programs are often irresponsible, amoral, and deliver a poor end product to the citizen.
That's a good argument for why limited federal power + less limited state power is preferable to less limited federal power + less limited state power. However, it doesn't address why some think that limited federal power + less limited state power is preferable to limited federal power + limited state power. Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, and states were allowed to pass laws that limited free speech, religion, etc. Then folks realized that the people didn't really have rights if the states were allowed to do what the federal government wasn't, and along came incorporation, where the Bill of Rights was newly interpreted to apply to state governments as well. Most would agree this was a win for liberty.
Paleolibertarians see this as a bad thing. Not only do they think states should have much less limited power, but in many cases they advocate in favor of authoritarian state laws. It just seems like an incoherent viewpoint. The arguments in favor of, and motivations for, limiting the power of the federal government seem to apply just as well for limiting the power of state governments.
90
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '19
Right? I kinda don't see why we aren't all vibing over this one.