Well I see that blogger Don Lacey has discovered that writing critically of Ron Paul in Arizona is akin to writing critically of Muhammed in Afghanistan
So it looks as if it’s time for me to mention how we arrived at this point in history – which in this case is the story of two melding ideologies.
Ideology 1 – Libertarianism – begun by Ayn Rand with her popular novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and her collection of essays (with her boy toy Nathaniel Branden) The Virtue of Selfishness.
As has been famously noted:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. – John Rogers
Rand was a refugee from Communism and her ideology was basically a celebration of free market individualism and a hatred of socialism.
She was not a “patriot”, did not justify her ideology with rigamarole from the US Constitution or founding fathers and was a believer in individual rights – not “State’s rights”.
Ideology #2 – the Confederates. Even after losing the Civil War the South Shall Always Rise Again in the hearts of the Confederates. These southern gentlemen remain commited to maintaining the privileged place of the white christian male and are fiercely dedicated to the Constitution – or at least those antebellum parts of it that extol “States Rights” – and hate the Federal government ( previously known as the “damn yankees”).
They will extol the virtues of “State’s rights” at every opportunity, human rights not so much, and they love Jesus.
Now it would seem that these ideologies have little in common, which is true, but they have just enough in common – at least in rhetoric – to have become the jumble that Jim sees in his comments thread.
They share a paranoid fear of the “federal government” and they both fetishize firearms.
So when a Confederate like Ron Paul attacks the “Federal” government, they hear it as an attack on “government” – and they are willing to let that little “State’s rights” plug he always inserts slip past. And soon they believe it themselves.
That is why, in 2012, “Libertarianism” looks suspiciously like those idiots arguing with Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind:
You simply do not understand the Libertarian philosophy that is embedded in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution (as per Thomas Jefferson).
The point of this bill was to return more rights to the states
You mean the constitution would have to be obeyed under this act. As it stands, the state governments are forced to bow before the “anti-religion” religion you are a devoted follower of.
The idea of promoting States rights is because you can represent the values of your constituents better that way,
That’s why we believe in state’s rights and limited government,
The federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with the laws of the state. Furthermore, If a state wants to endorse or promote religion then they have that right. It’s up to the state to make just and moral decisions form themselves; even if those decisions turn out to be mistakes.
States rights is a very big deal but the author just does not understand this. If a state has bad laws or ones that I disagree with, I can move away from the state.
Abortion is the most unilateral use of force I can think of. A zygote is not the same as a fetus, but life is life and it should be protected.
It is very clear in the constitution where the federal government should be in relations to the individual States,out of their hair.
Take the California Supreme Court, they created policy from thin air that Gay marriage is to be allowed
Honestly the biggest thing about states rights that appeals to me is the whole mantra of “Don’t like it? Move to a state that runs the way you like.”
The Constitution is explicit as to what the rights of the American people are and the Bill Of Rights gives the protection enforced by the “Federal” government. The Constitution also is clear on the restraint of the federal government with interfering with the sovereignty of states.
Using the argument that without the Federal government mandating every aspect of our daily lives this country would be a state dictatorship with slavery is an outrageous statement.