I read this all the time on message boards of libertarian movement of talk of big government today:o :o but I don’t mean in sense of oh we don’t believe in big government but way the US was in past.
Is the US most decentralize government in the world or the US founding fathers or US framers really wanted a decentralize government .
Most conservative anarchist or libertarian really hate centralized government and would want the US to go back to way it was before a more proper democracy.But the question was the US that way in the past or the vision of the US founding fathers or US framers really wanted it that way or I’m confused with the US colonies.
The right to have guns , right to freedom of speech ,abolishment of slavery , drug laws , FDA ,right for free trial and you are incident to proven guilty ,police can search with probable cause , 21 and older to drink ,prohibition of alcohol 30’s ,separation of church and state tells me the visions is for centralized body to enforce the constitution. o:o:o If the US founding fathers or US framers really wanted decentralized government would federal laws be illegal and most of constitution?? Why because under proper conservative anarchy or libertarian society it would be !!! It would be up to each state or colony to have it’s own laws .
In Canada ,UK and Australia it even less decentralized because the province /state have even less powers has most every thing is at federal government.
Libertarianism can be either federalist or non-federalist. That really doesn’t matter.
Having said that, most libertarians tend to be strongly federalist, with the idea (I assume) that it’s better to be able to limit the power of one aspect of government than none. But one could certainly make the case that if the federal government were set up along a Libertarian model, it would be good, for libertarians, to want a more centralized authority because then that authority could rein in the states.
But again, one needn’t have a system like the US in order to implement libertarian principles. States, schmates, machs nicht. It’s what the government does, at whatever level, that counts.
John Mace nailed it. For most libertarians (why you’re treating them as interchangable with conservatives and anarchists is beyond my understanding), it’s the role and powers of government that matter, not its particular structure.
Another reason libertarians are often federalists is that a federal structure means having the ability to move from one state to another easily, so the states are to some degree competing for citizens. If one gets too authoritarian for your tastes, you can try your luck elsewhere. Fleeing federal laws is much more difficult.
Conservatism: philosophy preferring to adapt changes slowly so as to conserve values of established institutions
Conservatism (popular): political “Right Wing” favoring business, strong defense, and a government that provides a framework to ensure morality in public (and sometimes private) actions
Libertarianism: philosophy that holds that government should be used in a minimal fashion to guarantee that individuals are not harmed
Anarchism: philosophy that government is inherently bad and that the removal of government would improve the lot of humanity
In the real world, each of these play out in the political sphere in different (and sometimes apparently contradictory) ways, but it is really not possible to link all three together simultaneously. The use of such lumping tends to indicate that one needs to invest a bit more time understanding the words, their meanings, and definitions before one expresses beliefs about them.
Beyond that, I would like to see some evidence for the claim that in Canada the federal government exercises more power over the provinces and territories, particularly in the day-to-day life of its citizens, than the U.S. federal government exercises over its states and citizens.
There are specific actions in the Canada where the Federal government wields direct power, but that is also true in the U.S. I suspect that there is simply a different mix of “intrusive” laws in each country, possibly resulting in slightly more or less power in each situation, but that there is not a clearly delineated weight of federal vs provincial/state authority that differs remarkably between the two nations.
Valid definitions so far as they go, but better ones would make clear that anarchism arises out of a left-wing tradition very closely associated with Marxism and aims at the abolition of private property, which libertarianism is explicitly concerned with protecting.
Yes. The Founders pretty explicitly wanted a weak central government that would do more or less only the stuff that the states couldn’t do for themselves. Ultimately, it turned out that the states couldn’t be trusted and we got the 14th Amendment.
I’ve seen a message-button at SF cons: “The United States Constitution has its faults, but it’s a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got now.” Which is clever, and a lie: It’s demonstrably a hell of a lot worse than what we’ve got now.
Human Action there two types of anarchist one who want no government or laws the radical anarchist far left anarchist and than more conservative anarchist that advocate decentralized government.
The anarchist like libertarians claim big government are more prone to corruption ,problems and running things bad and not to say true democracy of people.One point out fascism ,communism or socialism of big government are more prone to corruption and problems because concentration of power and the responsibility the state most take care of you can also lead to state acting has your mom or dad and getting into your bedroom not to say true free democracy.
The hallmark of fascism ,communism or socialism is what is right for state not the individualism it power in hands minority government body.
Now anarchist like libertarians claim big government is bad because of this.Some not so radical anarchist will support decentralize government to province /state level that will represent true democracy of each province /state making laws .Some province /state can be pro guns other anti guns , some death penalty other not , some province /state run healthcare others private , some province /state christian others atheist .
The claim is why should big government over step province /state rights to do want the people want in the state.
I know US each state does have its own penalty criminal law some state very hard on crime other softer. Like in Texas don’t put up with lawbreakers.
But anarchist like libertarians say the government is way too big now and got really big of FDR.
All anarchists count as far-left in my book; seeing as abolition of private property is a hallmark of all of them. Are you referring to social anarchists as the “conservative” type?
That’s not the mainstream libertarial thought I’m familiar with. Libertarianism as I know it calls for a small government because the proper role of government doesn’t require a large bureaucratic apparatus. The focus is on what the government ought to be doing; its size is a side-effect.
I hope you realize that anarchism and libertarianism are completely incompatible. One calls for the abolition of private property and rule by spontaneous order, the other for the protection of private property and a government that exists to protect the individual from other individuals.
Both are opposed to the current role of government, but for very different reasons, and the “perfect” societies envisioned by each are not compatible at all.
I know anarchism and libertarianism are different in terms of economics.The anarchism hate private property and libertarianism want and believe in free market.
But both hate big government and centralized government.The libertarianism hate FDR because that was big government they thing the poor should be taken care of by the church or donations / charity at very least not the government . The healthcare , social security ,warfare and food stamp be done by the church or donations / charity not government. Or at least some libertarianism wont states to make the choice not feds that take over state rights.
Both anarchism and libertarianism hate the feds that take over state rights because of big government and centralized government .
There not liberal or conservative. The conservative belief or philosophy of preserve existing conditions, institutions, limit change and traditional views ,family values and values and strong on morality and vice sex ,drugs ,smoking and drinking.
The conservative are appose or limit social programs saying that it is my money and belief or philosophy of giving government handouts for lazy people that don’t want to work
The liberal is social justice and that the role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care, education, and the expansion of civil rights , abortion rights, LGBT rights , healthcare , social security .
Both are centralized government.Non claim that feds should just deal with trade ,immigrants and military defense only.
So than who would fit that view of more decentralized government ? I thought there was some anarchists not so radical one that want the state or community to decide on laws and politics be it liberal , conservative or socialism or want ever be at state level or community / colony level.
o:o:o If the US founding fathers or US framers really wanted decentralized government would federal laws be illegal and most of constitution?? Why because under proper conservative anarchy or libertarian society it would be !!! It would be up to each state or colony to have it’s own laws .