It has long been said that state rights are a bastion of conservatism, something that liberals and progressives don't believe in. While states' rights have favored conservative policies in some instances, I have never understood why this should be a general rule. After all, libertarianism, a branch of liberalism, also supports state rights.
The Trump administration's travel bans have served to highlight this. When the federal government overreaches, in any given direction, it's better for the states to be able to challenge them. State rights are ultimately a protector of liberty, when the federal government does not take liberty seriously. Centralization, on the other hand, has always been among the favorite tools of authoritarians.
Of course, state rights have been invoked against marriage equality and anti-segregation laws too. But that's the fault of authoritarianism, not the fault of states' rights itself. For example, in Australia, marriage laws can only be changed by the federal government, resulting in exactly zero states having marriage equality at the moment. In a truly liberal society, individual rights should trump collectivist designs, whether state or federal. But that's another issue altogether.
-
Why we can't cede the libertarian movement to authoritarian pretenders Today, I want to talk about why it is important that we, the peop...
-
Why the real worry is not the academic stuff, but the activist adoption of CRT's ideas. Welcome back to TaraElla Report LvCT, Liberalism...
-
The ruling class is behind the grandiose thinking that has caused division and polarization Lately, I have been thinking a lot about why so-...
