I’d say it’s a very relevant example. Opponents of gay marriage have introduced laws at both the federal and state level.
No. The Constitution was stated to be the Supreme Law of the land, and the Constitution is a document designed to delineate the powers and authority that the people and the states grant to the feds.
You cut off the other part of my point. You are the one that brought up federal supremacy. Both Colorado and Washington state say that it doesn’t apply anymore in the case of recreational marijuana use and the feds don’t seem to care much so far. That is clear test of federal supremacy and the feds seem to loose so far. The universal truth isn’t so true anymore. That is a minor issue but it is a test case. States might be able to break off with more extreme initiatives if they want to. What are the feds going to do, start another Civil War over it?
I am not sure where your examples for gay marriage are applicable. No state would have gay marriage rights laws now if it was a federal initiative. Instead certain states did it on their own. It is completely expected to have groups launching counter-campaigns at any level they can but they haven’t worked and they won’t ever. That isn’t really relevant to this argument.
Not really. The "test’ was Raich, and the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the feds. They may choose not to enforce, but the clearly have the power to do so.
Liberals support states over the fed when they agree with them, and vice versa for conservatives. Maybe there’s an academic somewhere chafing that they’re “doing it wrong.” I don’t think it’s news that states differ on their policies depending on the makeup of that state.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that a political unit that’s too big or diverse is unstable or dysfunctional. The idea that a nation of 300 million spread across thousands of miles is homogeneous enough to be served by a single policy sounds goofy on its face. But where is the limit? Is anything bigger than a city mean you’re under the thumb of a foreign tyranny? Across an ocean? Could a world government even pretend to be democratic? Or going sci-fi, could a planetary system actually work?
Speaking of homogeneity and geographic area what do you think about the idea of breaking up some of the larger states? Like California and Texas.
Contradiction in terms. Libertarianism is fundamentally anti-capitalist and positively communist, because capitalism is an inherently authoritarian mode of socioeconomic organization.
The section says: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
So the United States Constitution and federal laws are supreme over all state constitutions and laws.
I agree with what John Mace said. Just because the federal government has chosen for now to not exert itself in this area does not mean they lack the authority to do so. If a President or Congress decided drug enforcement was an issue they could crank the War on Drugs back up. And to reverse your question, what are the states going to do, start another Civil War over it?
I’m not a libertarian but I think most of them would argue there’s a fundamental distinction between governmental authoritarianism and private authoritarianism.
That is 100% false. Any form of libertraianism is only interested in maximizing personal freedom over all other goals. No particular economic plan is necessary as long as those conditions are met. t could be small scale socialism like a commune or extreme forms of capitalism that meet those goals as long as people are willing parties to whatever economic system is agreed upon. In practice, libertarianism usually works best with some form of capitalism.
You may be thinking of anarchism. Many people confuse the two ideas because of very superficial similarities. However, they are close to philosophical opposites and have nothing in common once you get deeper into the motivation behind them. In short, libertarianism is usually considered a right-wing way of thinking in popular parlance even though it doesn’t have to be and anarchism is an offshoot of really extreme left-wing ideology.
No. THe federal laws that “are made in pursuance thereof” (that is, in accord with the constitution) are the supreme law of the land. It is not correct to say that “The federal government was stated to be “the supreme Law of the Land” in the original text back in 1787”, and you can’t quote the constitution in support of that. That is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dead wrong.
Which means communism, because that is literally not possible with any other mode of socioeconomic organization.
Actually, libertarianism–real libertarianism–has always been fundamentally anti-capitalist in orientation, precisely because capitalism is necessarily and wholly incompatible with individual liberty.
Patently untrue.
Not so neat, actually.
What liberal policy hasn’t followed this general pattern? Civil Rights? Didn’t get started on a federal level until several states had passed their own civil rights legislation. Same with abortion rights. There still hasn’t been any attempt at national-level, pro-gay rights legislation. Everything’s been done at the state level so far. What liberal policies are you thinking of, that originated entirely at the federal level, without first having significant success at the state level?
Pardon my ignorance if state precedence existed, but Social Security is one that comes to mind.
They live on the same island as the fiscally responsible Democrats 
Very simplistic view. Firstly, state governments are in a position to create laws that are more consistent with the desires of the majority of individuals in their borders. If more powers were left the states, there would be less individuals living under laws they didn’t agree with for two reasons. One is the simple mathematical reason I expressed above. The second is the fact that to travel between united states is much easier than it is to escape the grasp of the US government.
If there is only one huge national government, in order to legalize anything, there must be a massive popular movement, and even then it could fail. What you’ve actually made is an argument for dissolving the federal government, or else returning it to an originalist interpretation. For if you only want one level of government, it should undoubtedly be the local one that is more responsive to its citizens.
“Libertarian” doesn’t mean that anymore. Just like “liberal” no longer means what it meant 100-150 years ago. If you want to have discussions with people in the 20th century, it would help to speak their language. " Libertarian" now means agreement with the non-aggression principle. Capitalism is wholly compatible with what modern beings consider to be libertarian.
Unless those discussions are about Nirvana, Bill Clinton and starting a dot-com, “20th century” doesn’t have the same connotations as it did 15 years ago.