Replies

Nowhere did I support this guy's essay in toto. I just agreed with two of his points: 1) that the federal government is pretty much the only level of government that can deficit spend is a key (if not THE key) reason why over time power has shifted away from the states and toward the feds, and 2) that we could shift a lot of services currently provided by the feds back to the states.

I'm a firm believer that certain key laws and definitions should be made at the national level. Which persons qualify as citizens, which beings qualify as persons, etc.

I'm also a firm believer that every state should be allowed to experiment, but only within the constraints of the Constitution. Nothing that the essayist wrote seems to violate the constitution. It would be much more leftist than he or any Freeper would like, but it wouldn't be against the Constitution.

Come to think of it, I don't think that socialism is necessarily against the Constitution, definitely in spirit, but not necessarily in word. Large parts of the economy are already nationalized or government run such as dams, the interstate highway system, BLM, National Parks, the military, etc. If the people wanted to nationalize the food growing and distribution systems, where in the Constitution does it say they couldn't get away with it?

I know that libertarians believe that the only truly Constitutional government is a libertarian one, but we seem to have muddled along OK for quite some time without having anything even mildly resembling such a minimal state.

Would a libertarian state in word and deed have been able to stand up to the Confederate Army? Would it have been able to defeat Hitler and Hirohito?