/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

Basically what I'm saying is that it's mostly a cultural thing whether or not a country is oppressive and that state laws are garbage. Ancient Rome and Christianized Rome is proof that I am right. And it does not matter if we're talking about the "roman kingdom", "roman republic", or the "roman empire"

>>234 (OP) 
>Having local laws on top of federal laws just leads to tyranny as a lot of local laws end up contradicting or eradicating constitutional rights
That's backwards. You want political power to be as distributed and localized as possible because that gives the smallest scope for tyranny. The people of a city can go to the mayor's house and hang him from a lamppost. The people of an empire can't realistically travel 2000 miles and fight through an army of soldiers to lynch an emperor.

The point of federalism is that the states follow a small number of federal laws and then decide everything else themselves. So if california wants to ban abortions and texas wants to ban weed then that's fine. People can choose to live in whichever state best represents their values.

What has driven america off the rails in modern times is that the federal government is way too big and tries to force cultural issues on all states from above. So every federal election becomes a mini civil war to decide with 50% of the country will rule over the other 50% for 4 years. That's not how things were intended to work at all.

>All US states had a law against homosexuality at one point and if your religious views allowed sodomy, then you have been stripped of your supposed right of religious freedom. 
All religions believe it's not a sin to kill infidels so yes you need laws that come above religious freedom. That's not controversial if you think about it.

>People should not have to look into laws from county to county and state to state just to see what they are allowed to do
The smaller the political unit the fewer arbitrary laws they can realistically enforce anyway.

>USA vs ancient rome
You're talking about a 2000 year technology gap. If ancient rome had instant communication and automatic weapons and 600mph jets then they could well be fucking with everybody's business as much as any other modern state. Are you trying to make the case that ancient rome had some philosophical principle to leave everyone alone or is it just that they were limited by their technology?

>>234 (OP) 
>All US states had a law against homosexuality at one point
That's actually an argument in favor of federalism because flipping the law in one small state is much easier than trying to do it on a federal level. And you don't need some big revolution either it happens naturally through market forces. Gay people will naturally gravitate towards states with the most lenient laws and their presence in the community and economy will put further pressure on softening the laws.

>>237
>The people of a city can go to the mayor's house and hang him from a lamppost. The people of an empire can't realistically travel 2000 miles and fight through an army of soldiers to lynch an emperor.
With modern technology, today they can. Even back then it was realistically possible. You just had to position yourself as close to the emperor as possible and initiate a coup detat
>The people of a city can go to the mayor's house and hang him from a lamppost.
And they can still do that under federalism
>What has driven america off the rails in modern times is that the federal government is way too big and tries to force cultural issues on all states from above.
I'll admit that this is also a problem. But the problem that I talked about is still a problem and you're failing to truly address it. 
>So if california wants to ban abortions and texas wants to ban weed then that's fine. People can choose to live in whichever state best represents their values.
Moving 2,000 miles just to move to a state that represents your values was not realistic 200 years ago nor is it realistic for a third of people today.
>All religions believe it's not a sin to kill infidels so yes you need laws that come above religious freedom.
It is very controversial if you think about it. All states at one point- although they didn't force you to be christian- forced you to act like a christian and do as they do
>The smaller the political unit the fewer arbitrary laws they can realistically enforce anyway.
It becomes much harder to enforce laws the larger the body of land under federalism. Ancient Rome at the peak of it's power was a good example of this. Also, I'm not having my wages garnished by both the federal government and the state government. 
>If ancient rome had instant communication and automatic weapons and 600mph jets then they could well be fucking with everybody's business as much as any other modern state. Are you trying to make the case that ancient rome had some philosophical principle to leave everyone alone or is it just that they were limited by their technology?
I am absolutely saying that. Rome (when they conquered other countries/tribes) absorbed their cultures by "Hellenizing" so that they would not be harmful/disruptive within society. The dark ages set back technology in Rome by 500 years yet under state enforced christianity, Rome was a much MUCH less free society than when Rome was a state religion

>>238
>That's actually an argument in favor of federalism because flipping the law in one small state is much easier than trying to do it on a federal level
it's called an executive order. the president can enforce any law at any time for any reason, even robbing the public of all the wealth they have by illegally search and seizing gold which went against the sherman antitrust act and 4th amendment. as long as the courts don't throw the executive order out, the president can do as he pleases

>>247
>Moving 2,000 miles just to move to a state that represents your values was not realistic
You are mixing your contexts up here. With small distributed power structures you don't need to travel that far to get to another jurisdiction. It could be as simple as moving 20 miles from one city to another. With a continent wide empire you do need to travel 2000 miles to get away from a shitty tyrannical emperor and that will always be less realistic.

>It becomes much harder to enforce laws the larger the body of land under federalism.
The bigger that state is the more disposable income it has to hire people to make stupid laws and enforce them. And the bigger the state is the less cultural influence the people have to resist stupid laws.

>I am absolutely saying that. 
So it's got nothing to do with ancient rome you are just unabomber wanting to go back to the bronze age.

>>249
>it's called an executive order
<just be president then you can do what you want
Great argument.

>>250
>So it's got nothing to do with ancient rome you are just unabomber wanting to go back to the bronze age.
Ancient Rome was in fact the Iron Age. I'm not seeing any arguments of why ancient rome was more tyrannical than christianized rome despite christianized rome being much less advanced than them. Because news flash dumbass, the Holy Roman Empire wasn't even "Roman". It consisted of barbarians that illegally migrated and subverted rome thanks to "christian" plotting.
>And the bigger the state is the less cultural influence the people have to resist stupid laws.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Local states have done virtually nothing against the federal government infringing on their rights in America. 
>With small distributed power structures you don't need to travel that far to get to another jurisdiction.
None of the "distributed power structures" have done anything significant against the federal government (consisting of communists) from infringing on the entirety of the bill of rights. Even if they did, how the government is setup, the federal courts can force a state enforce cultural issues from above. Thus making any resistance to federal law meaningless. Which is why having state laws piled on top of federal laws results in tyranny. 
>Great argument.
It's still true. The federal government has ultimate authority of what is allowed to happen state to state 
>With a continent wide empire you do need to travel 2000 miles to get away from a shitty tyrannical emperor and that will always be less realistic.
Modern day America is tyrannical and you'd still have to do something to this affect to make any meaningful difference. Of course, there's also subversion but billionaires have figured out how to keep politicians in their pocket because the only politicians they really fund are the politicians highly susceptible to black mail

>>251
I'm going to drive my point further home. If all we had to deal with was the federal government, they would not care enough to make a bunch of retarded zoning laws or other garbage. State governments instead of enforcing the US constitution do away with it and even make a bunch of retarded laws to make themselves seem useful. This in turn desensitizes them when the federal government decides to also do away with the constitution on a federal level

1629375636747-2.webm
[Hide] (2.2MB, 360x360, 00:17)

>>234 (OP) 
>I'm just curious how anyone here could make the case that the US was ever freer than ancient rome
You can't.
Ancient Rome before the collapse had a tax of 1 day's work out of the entire year.

Everything in the US is taxed, such that the lowest tax you'll pay is 60%.
>muh fees aren't taxes
If you have to pay a fee to use public services, or land, it's a tax. (entrance fee to state park, fishing license, hunting license)
If you have to pay an additional fee to the government on top of whatever the seller wants, it's a tax. (sales tax, 911 tax, etc)
If you have to pay a fee to a government representative to use something or "own" something, it's a tax. (property tax, vehicle registration)
If a subsidy is used to control a market, every product of that market is automatically taxed because your money is used to subsidize that product. (corn, milk, soy)
If a service is mandated by the government to own or operate something, it's a tax. (auto insurance)
Westerners pay their governments a large portion of their income (income tax), and their governments use some of that money to import foreign workers who send their income to their home countries. That's cuckoldry.

And then the laws.
You have your:
City and town laws.
County laws.
State laws.
Laws certified by the regional court (5th circuit court).
Federal laws, including many treaties that stipulate that the US must enforce the text of the treaty within US territories.

How many laws does a US citizen live under? Nobody knows, yet the court operates under "ignorance of the law is not defense from the law"
In the meantime, anyone who directly supports the courts and their officers are above these laws, and can even use ignorance of the law as a valid defense.
And then there's civil court, which is entirely different from criminal court, and is pay to win, and pay when you lose.
By the way, the government can outspend you, so you're fucked if you end up civil court against the feds, which they'll do over $300 or your shitty beater.

The wonderful example of how insane the US is, is the idea of debtor prisons.
These things are outright illegal in the US, yet a judge can hold you in civil contempt of court for whatever reason they want, and attach a fine to your sentence.
If you don't pay that fine upon release, then you go back to jail.
Fees on top of the original fine will accrue while you're in jail, so it can easily snowball into life in jail. This is common in the family court system.

Shit's fucked m8.

e9b14a4d2122cb3fd87636d20b537469db4c0ca6da9dc698b1f4f7d0116fe215.mp4
[Hide] (1.2MB, 480x480, 00:06)

>>253
>tax
And to add to the insanity, Social Security is taken out of your paycheck and supposed to be invested by the government so that you can use it in your old age.
But when you start drawing from Social Security, they tax it as income.

These kikes double and quadruple tax every cent you get from them.

>>251
>Local states have done virtually nothing against the federal government infringing on their rights in America.
Drugs, abortion, guns, pick one. Any combination of issues has been pushed at the federal level and resisted by some state or another.

>None of the "distributed power structures" have done anything significant against the federal government 
Not since the civil war no.

>The federal government has ultimate authority of what is allowed to happen state to state
Yes but your influence on the federal government is microscopic. The president can do whatever he wants with executive orders but the chance of you being president are the same as you shitting a unicorn egg.

>Modern day America is tyrannical and you'd still have to do something to this affect to make any meaningful difference.
You just need a state to succeed from the union without triggering another civil war. Texas seems to be the most likely.
https://mises.org/library/common-sense-case-independent-texas

>>252
>If all we had to deal with was the federal government, they would not care enough to make a bunch of retarded zoning laws or other garbage. State governments instead of enforcing the US constitution do away with it and even make a bunch of retarded laws to make themselves seem useful.
The exact opposite of what you said is true. The bigger that state is the more disposable income it has to hire people to make stupid laws and enforce them.

>>253
>Everything in the US is taxed, such that the lowest tax you'll pay is 60%.
The modern state doesn't live on taxes. They print money through the central bank and just give it to themselves. The point of taxes is to control inflation by removing the excess money from the economy after the important people have already spent it.

>Ancient Rome before the collapse had a tax of 1 day's work out of the entire year.
I don't know much about ancient rome but I'm pretty sure they debased their currency to the point of worthlessness at some point near the end.

>>257
>The president can do whatever he wants with executive orders but the chance of you being president are the same as you shitting a unicorn egg.
Authoritarians always assume that "their guy" will be in charge. You'd be a fucking retard if you helped build a totalitarian superstate if you thought there was any chance that some violent psychopath could take it over and use it against you.