1 vote

Does Libertarianism Sometimes Contradict the Constitution?

So I was self-evaluating my Libertarian political beliefs today, you know, just one of those days... And I was just wondering. Libertarians support Frederic Bastiat's idea that every individual has a right to defend their life, liberty, and property with force because having these taken away would amount to murder, slavery, and theft, respectively. So if we each have the right to defend these unalienable rights with force, then therefore the law, or the government's role, is to serve as a collectivization of every individual's force to stop anybody from using force to take life, liberty, or property away from someone.

So this is why we believe that based on liberty, people should have the right to smoke marijuana, drink raw milk, and (if the doctor agrees with the patient) the patient should have every right to use up and coming medical treatment that is still in the experimental phase and has not passed through the FDA yet. Those are just a few examples of what I believe in as a Libertarian.

Let's say we do take away all federal regulations and we allow people to do all of these things on a federal level. But doesn't the Constitution allow the states to pretty much illegalize these things on a state level? I totally understand that local self-government was a very big reason for why we fought the American Revolution. However, if you support the Constitution and state's rights to pass these laws prohibiting liberty, aren't you really just allowing dictatorship on a state level? If Libertarians truly believed in the idea that government should not be engaging in any idea of a government nannying people and telling them what's good and what's bad, shouldn't we oppose it on a state level too?

I know Libertarians and Constitutionalists have very much in common, but how do you feel about this? Are most people on DailyPaul Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or Libertarian-Constitutionalists?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

State governments can be just

State governments can be just as evil as the Feds, but what's potentially positive about states rights superseding the Feds is that under that system if the state you're living in goes Bloomberg you can always move to a state more friendly to liberty.

But what you're getting at is that the constitution itself is "libertarian" only if you believe yourself to be libertarian and you believe that government is a necessary evil, the key word being "necessary". Back to the old minarchist vs voluntarist debate.

Personally, I'm a realist voluntarist. I know that government is unnecessary, but only in a world where NAP rules personal behavior. That world is not the current one, unfortunately, so while I can imagine a voluntarist world I'd be overjoyed just to see a US governed in line with the constitution.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Feelings are for people with

Feelings are for people with no brains. :-) As far as states, you always have a choice to vote with your wallet or your feet, federal government extend over the whole 50 states, cant walk away from it.

Yes.

Because taxation is theft.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).