Replies

Claim: "The single greatest error of libertarians is to fail to recognize that limiting the power of the Federal government is far more important than using that power to restrict the power of state governments to regulate individuals."

Argument: "By defending Federal arrogations of power that, in the short run, appear to advance individual liberties [...] they [1] alienate natural allies and [2] bring about less freedom in the long run."

This is an interesting argument, and it's made in clear, articulate prose. It's a pleasure to read.

However I disagree.

Re [1] -- The people I'm alienating want the States to use their power to promote religion. They are most certainly _not_ my natural allies. IF people were saying "The very thought of States using their powers to promote religion makes me want to puke, but nonetheless this not an issue governed by the Constitution, then there's no need for them to feel alienated. We can work together to crush any state politician, including the Chief Justice of Alabamba.

Re [2] -- Why so? Federal powers to limit state powers does not translate into greater federal powers over individuals. Just the opposite. The less states can do, the more liberty we have.

I think that the single greatest error of conservatives is to fail to recognize that increasing the power of States to legislate erodes individual liberties and alienates natural allies.

You are wrong on both points:

1. We are not promoting religion. That has been debunked so cleanly that only someone with a religious axe to grind can still throw it out there.

Cite one time the government required someone to be christian to do something. If Judge Moore is sooooo scary it should be easy to find the instance when he forced some one to accept his religion.

Sorry, walking past a monument doesn't do that. I've walked past statues of Budda but I didn't become a Buddist.

If the government was going to establish a religion they would have done it when christianity was far more accepted than today. Say in the early 1800's.

This argument is a straw man.

2. It is idiocy to think that less state power means more freedom. The Founders surely didn't think so thats why the states are a check on fed power per the 10th Amendment. I thought libertarians considered the Founders important.

The reason we have states is because they are closer to the people. It is far easier to influence state govertment than the federal. Therefore, it is far easier to hold them accountable.

I see the state reps and senators all the time. It's a first name basis. And I have attacked one mercilessly. State officals can't hide and can be held to account more easily.

Not so with the feds. Federal officals take months to even reply with a form letter to your correspondence. They have such power it takes million of dollars to defeat them at the pools. The difference is obvious.

And FEDERAL JUDGES! JUDGES are nearly invincible! A corrupt judge or court is almost invincible. It is extremely hard to them to account in any realistic way.

IF you do not like your state government you can move. There are some states I will not even visit. Can't do that with the feds!

So you are wrong on both counts.