States Rights: What do you think?

[Otrenia]

Law enforcement is one of them.

Federal Law supersedes State Law.

The States can make laws which the Federal Government hasn't done yet for the interest of their residents, however Federal Law can pass a law and render the State Law null and void.

if that Federal law pertains to a right they are given authority over, "law enforcement" not being one of those.

Federal law enforcement is necessary and proper to carrying out other tasks of the federal government.

[Fortschritte]

States clearly should have a certain amount of rights to govern their own state, and in some cases, go against the federal government. But, there is such a thing as "excessive states rights", and I find that the "states rights" conservatives and libertarians advocate are ludicrous.

[Dalharil]

Implying all Americans are innocent, how is he supporting the initiation of force?

He supports income taxation which is theft.

So you don't support taxes? What do you suggest then?

[Otrenia]

He supports income taxation which is theft.

So you don't support taxes? What do you suggest then?

Dear God, don't ask.

[Olerand]

Implying all Americans are innocent, how is he supporting the initiation of force?

He supports income taxation which is theft.

Taxes aren't theft, they are the price one pays for living in a society. If one doesn't like their society's tax rates, they can move to a society with less.

[Otrenia]

Implying all Americans are innocent, how is he supporting the initiation of force?

He supports income taxation which is theft.

Any income you generate is a result of the safety and security provided by a tax-funded government. Needless to say they're the ones protecting your income.

[Dalharil]

So you don't support taxes? What do you suggest then?

Dear God, don't ask.

Lol I only asked because

Taxes aren't theft, they are the price one pays for living in a society. If one doesn't like their society's tax rates, they can move to a society with less.

So it makes no sense to not really support income tax lol.

I mean VA doesn't do income tax - my cousin lives there and posted a receipt of him going to go pick up a gallon of milk. I think I like my income tax just fine.

[Morganutopia]

He supports income taxation which is theft.

So you don't support taxes? What do you suggest then?

(short term)A very Small government funded through lotteries.
(long term) anarcho capitalism.

[Dalharil]

Ok doctors appointment now don't have to much fun without me.

[Otrenia]

So you don't support taxes? What do you suggest then?

(short term)A very Small government funded through lotteries.
(long term) anarcho capitalism.

Oh, so the Gilded Age?

[Skinia]

He supports income taxation which is theft.

Taxes aren't theft, they are the price one pays for living in a society. If one doesn't like their society's tax rates, they can move to a society with less.

No one should be obligated to pay for just "living in a society".

[Otrenia]

Taxes aren't theft, they are the price one pays for living in a society. If one doesn't like their society's tax rates, they can move to a society with less.

No one should be obligated to pay for just "living in a society".

You're paying for the services. You get more than permission to live from the government.

[Occupied Deutschland]

That's what I was thinking

Obviously not. OD cited one example that supported his argument and one that smashed it to claim I was not citing enough examples to consider States' "rights" wrong. He came to an opposed conclusion on primarily the same evidence.

Not really, unless one ignores everything except one aspect of voting rights.
Blacks were allowed to vote in a number of states prior to their inclusion on the federal level. Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New York, for example, extended the vote to blacks at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, along with Pennsylvania and Massachusetts a short while later. Women gained the right to vote in non-national elections a full fifty years before the passage of suffrage on the national level in Wyoming and in some degree across the Western states. Indians were long not recognized by the federal government, and a Nebraska ruling they were citizens entitled to bring lawsuits on the basis of habeas corpus, vote other such protections was struck down by the Supreme Court in the late 1800s.

It's decidedly less one-sided than you have convinced yourself of.

[Olerand]

Taxes aren't theft, they are the price one pays for living in a society. If one doesn't like their society's tax rates, they can move to a society with less.

No one should be obligated to pay for just "living in a society".

One receives services from this society. One pays for its upkeep. Otherwise, one leaves.

No society that provides absolutely no services has taxes. Well, there is no society which provides no services. Except for those whose governments essentially don't exist, where, essentially, there are also "no taxes".

[Morganutopia]

No one should be obligated to pay for just "living in a society".

You're paying for the services. You get more than permission to live from the government.

Okay I'd like to opt out of government services please.

[Dalharil]

(short term)A very Small government funded through lotteries.
(long term) anarcho capitalism.

Oh, so the Gilded Age?

[Olerand]

You're paying for the services. You get more than permission to live from the government.

Okay I'd like to opt out of government services please.

Then exit. The majority has agreed to this social contract, if you don't approve, move somewhere more to your liking.

[Dalharil]

You're paying for the services. You get more than permission to live from the government.

Okay I'd like to opt out of government services please.

It's not a requirement to live in the US

[Arkolon]

Okay I'd like to opt out of government services please.

social contract

No.

[Otrenia]

You're paying for the services. You get more than permission to live from the government.

Okay I'd like to opt out of government services please.

Then you can leave the country, if we're kind enough to forgive the debt incurred already (beginning with federal enforcement of hospital & medicine standards that allowed you to be born safely, your free public education, the protection of the police and courts all these years, the military's protection from foreign aggression, etc.)

[Skinia]

No one should be obligated to pay for just "living in a society".

You're paying for the services. You get more than permission to live from the government.

The only reason we have a taxation-funded social welfare, healthcare and education systems is because many things in society costs money and poor people should have an opportunity to attain them. The reason why things cost is because the providers of basic needs like food and meds feel the need to put prices so high on them that poor people cannot afford them without being funded by a governmental welfare program.

Again. This too, is for a thread other than this one.

[Laerod]

Obviously not. OD cited one example that supported his argument and one that smashed it to claim I was not citing enough examples to consider States' "rights" wrong. He came to an opposed conclusion on primarily the same evidence.

Not really, unless one ignores everything except one aspect of voting rights.
Blacks were allowed to vote in a number of states prior to their inclusion on the federal level. Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New York, for example, extended the vote to blacks at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, along with Pennsylvania and Massachusetts a short while later. Women gained the right to vote in non-national elections a full fifty years before the passage of suffrage on the national level in Wyoming and in some degree across the Western states. Indians were long not recognized by the federal government, and a Nebraska ruling they were citizens entitled to bring lawsuits on the basis of habeas corpus, vote other such protections was struck down by the Supreme Court in the late 1800s.

Yep. Selective citing of anecdotes. This one is, incidentally, countered by the Civil Rights Act.

You're arguing that your case holds water by ignoring the vast amount of times States trampled the rights of US citizens in an attempt to claim that the Federal government is just as bad. Which is stupid, as you need to show that the Federal government does it more often.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Clearly, however, the Federal government is the(at least from my perspective, prove me wrong if you can, please.) apparent threat to the Bill of Rights. State authorities can make your life hard and just flat out, annoy you. But Federal police can in turn, violate your constitutional rights. Now, the state police could do the same thing. But in legal cases involving the states, the Federal government needs to keep out. And that's what has been happening for a while.

Because the federal government has more rights, as granted by the Constitution. It's the federal government's role to deal with defense and national security, not a state's.

So, your problem is with your nation's creators.

No. The Constitution clearly states what "rights" the Federal government has, and also that anything not covered is to be decided by the States.

Also, you are not entirely correct on defense. There are State defense forces too.

[Olerand]

social contract

No.

Yes.

I know libertarians and ex-libertarians don't put much faith in this concept, and I have read your Lockeian thread, but the social contract does exist.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants(varies by society, but all developed societies recognize it) recognize this concept. It is a thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So you don't support taxes? What do you suggest then?

(short term)A very Small government funded through lotteries.
(long term) anarcho capitalism.

This sounds idiotic.