But if you look at issues like gay marriage and marijuana, it's precisely the states that are being more liberal than the feds. Historically, it was the states that first started ending prohibition. And states can't censor books or force you to pray, since those are unconstitutional.

I agree a state centered system would permit decentralized government in some cases, but in others it would lead to the worse abuses. I mean half of Mississippians today want to ban interracial marriage.

I agree that the 14th Amendment should curtail state abuses, but most libertarians I've met seem to disagree, including Ron Paul. He thinks states should (not just could) pass laws for teaching creationism and prayer in school, and the entire point of supporting states rights for social conservatives is specifically to get around federal rules protecting abortion rights for women, separation of church and state, and anti-discrimination laws.

Cena is correct, loathe though I am to say that. It's the constitution that protects your rights, not the voters.

As for Ron Paul, I won't pretend that I listen to him all that much or that closely, but I think he believes in the federal government upholding basic human rights such as those laid out in the constitution and then leaving every other decision up to the states.

Better question would have been, "How many of you are on oxycontin right now". Most hands in the auditorium rise....

The whole issue of states rights is simply that states can pass laws to prohibit or allow controversial things, and if a citizen disagrees and cannot achieve satisfaction at the voting booth, that they can vote with their feet and move to another state while still retaining American citizenship. If you don't like something at the Federal level, you're sort of stuck. It's not the best solution, but at least it promotes more diversity in the kinds of societies one can experience in the US. Or not, as is the case now. Obama has been a real ass about enforcing morality issues in states that clearly don't agree ( like prosecuting federal drug laws in CA for example ).

Oh, the Federal Power vs. State Rights debate.
I'm sure this is going to be resolved in flying colors.

There is actually a libertarian reason to support state over federal rights. States and the federal government are each about as likely to increase or reduce rights as the other, but it is easier for outside pressure to change the policies of a state than a nation. If Mississippi or wherever want to round up the gays or turn into a slave owning aristocracy, there are 49 other states and a national army to change that. If America as a whole decides that fascism is awesome, then it would take a fairly major portion of the planet to force changes back to democracy. There is a potential problem of a majority of reactionary states preventing liberal policies by other states, but in practice separate states are more likely to band together for liberty rather than against it. Under this theory gains in liberty made by states would be more likely to stick around while regression would be corrected, while a strong national government would be more capricious.

If this all sounds slightly paranoid, why yes, yes it is.

It's an escape clause whenever the federal government forces these clods into the 20th century with radical big government like The Civil Rights Act.

Plus it's a lot easier for crazies to take over a state government.

That'll teach you to garner support, troll. Back to your cave!

It could have been an error, it happened to me a few weeks ago.

"Everything Ron Paul says is right and I'm a Libertarian."

There, you don't have to worry anymore little cena.

The American Libertarian party has positions that appeal to everybody. That's why Murray Rothbard's "Libertarian" journal was called Left AND Right. He was at first trying to unite the liberal voices of both sides... Towards the end he saw that the Left had spat him out because of his positions on the Great Society and segregation among many other things, and the only people who would listen to him were paleoconservatives.

Hence his endorsement of Pat Buchanan for President, and why "Libertarianism" with a capital L is now only truly subscribed to by halfwits like cena_mark.

lol abortion

It may be logically consistent to say, as a straight white christian male, "America's fine, quit messing with it," but it's still evil.

You know who else is intellectually honest and consistent in his positions? STARSCREAM.

Not to gang up. I do like consistency. Just not Ron Paul.

You shut your mouth about Starscream!