States' Rights Tradition (by Thomas DiLorenzo)

[SovereignStatesman]

Note that Dilorenzo is very vague, relating his point with anecdotes and claims of a "tradition" of "states rights," rather than an actual legal argument based on original intent.

Watch the video on my channel, and you'll see that each state was founded as a sovereign nation unto itself, and the people of the states did not change this.

[SovereignStatesman]

Dilorenzo is completely out of his element when he talks about the American system.

There was no "dual sovereignty," which is an oxymoron; rather, each state is a sovereign nation unto itself, and the PEOPLE of the state were the state's ruling sovereigns.

The People of each state thus DELEGATED certain powers to their state and federal governments via their state and federal Constittions respetively-- and could take them back.

Watch my video on my channel, and you'll see the facts.

[powerdriller10]

The state should be as small and as big as sufficiency indicates. But, what is sufficiency ?

[MegaAstrodude]

It's such a tricky issue--that states rights are forfeited when they violate human rights that the federal government has guaranteed to protect. I think the state government forfeits it's right to exist when it suppresses individual rights and it's good to replace it with a new state government. Then, the good state government should have rights.

[locitylar]

Individual state's right were gone after the civil war. they could have the small things, but the big issues were a federal matter. look at alabama governor george wallace when he wanted to keep black students out of the state university. it was tossed out of court. almost fifty years later, we look back and wonder how such segregation was possible. i guess abe lincoln, maybe without even knowing it, was right.

[Nielsio]

@locitylar You're looking at what is seen and you're forgetting what is unseen.

Check out another video on my channel: "The Advantages of Small States and the Dangers of Centralization (Hans Hoppe)".

[SovereignStatesman]

@locitylar

Then Hitler was right because he ended German poverty.

[statesrights01]

I agree

[jeffersonianideal]

Part 1:

I agree with Nielsio. As the late, great Harry Browne used to announce, "How small should government be? As small as possible." The difficulty is that to most constituents, politics is local. Most common folk will not have an interest in global trade barriers. They will instead, be concerned about barriers that restrict their personal pursuit of happiness.

[Nielsio]

I have a video up "The Advantages of Small States and the Dangers of Centralization (Hans Hoppe)"; you might like it.

[jeffersonianideal]

Professor Hans Hoppe says it clearly and succinctly, the state is the institution that decides who is right and wrong in cases of conflict that the state itself has provoked or causedthe state is a dangerous type of institution.

I realize it is a matter of semantics but I would not equate the term liberal with more freedom and less regulation, at least as it applies today. He must be referring to the classic definition of liberal.  Any personal thoughts on the Free State Project?

[jeffersonianideal]

Part 2:

That is why the 10th Amendment is contingent upon the States following the constitution's previous mandates, i.e. those powers actually delegated by the constitution. Now if someone could only get the States to agree to that deal, Americans would really have something. The constitution may not be perfect but it's better than what we have now.

[jeffersonianideal]

Part 1:

I admire and respect the words, writings and teachings of Thomas DiLorenzo immensely but insisting that states rights will somehow restore the rights that the feds have taken away is delusional. I do not trust the State I reside in to protect my individual liberties and personal freedoms any more than I trust the federal government to do so.

[jeffersonianideal]

Part 2:

State, county and local governments are just as corrupt, tyrannical and ineffective as the central government is. One of course, could move from state to state looking for liberty like Diogenes looked by lantern light for an honest man. Which states (try to name just one) would have within them, a set of constitutionalist legislators as well as a principled state supreme court with the convictions necessary to secure the inalienable rights of their inhabitants? Nada one!

[Nielsio]

The point is that less power is always better. The more amount of people a coercive monopoly has power over, the more dangerous it is and the less it is prone to resistance, and the more people like to use it to steal from people they don't know, because they are farther and farther away.

A smaller state also cannot afford a lot of trade barriers because people can move away from it easier, and the negative effects to trade will be stronger.

Power is not good, but less power is better.

[Monorprise]

See Article 4 Section 2 clause 3 of the United States Constitution which was then still in effect. 

But your right, States rights in basic printable do nessary cut both ways in protecting the rights of all sides. Most of all the individual people by virtue of mobility.

[norabel1]

Great classes Mr. Dilorenzo.

[armyofNorthVirginia]

States rights and the republic were destroyed in the name of preserving the union upon the signing of surrender at Appotomax 1865. This is the legacy of Lincoln. Secession and revolution are one and the same and a God given right of every American citizen. It is only for the will to fight that all men are free from tyrrany.

[321radmann]

Amen Brother!

[MegaAstrodude]

@armyofNorthVirginia,

Did those rights extend to West Virginia's desire to secede from Virginia?