But the weird thing is how many voluntarists and anarchists were easily fooled by a stupid and very obvious authoritarian like Trump, just because he paid lip-service to their beliefs . Maybe they were starving for approval of their ideas, so they became excited when someone on the political stage embraced some of the common conspiracy theories that tend to have followings in anarchist groups.
I guess it worked for right-wing Christians too, come to think of it. Trump only paid lip service to Christian ideals, while trampling all over them very publicly in his personal life.
But in that case I think it was all about abortion. Christian leaders knew that pro-abortion groups held the majority in the US and changes to abortion laws could only be achieved by non-democratic action. And because Christian leaders have a lot of political control over their flock, they can get them to vote for anyone with enough effort.
I'm with you. However, I observe an incrementalism argument. Trump may have appointed the judges who will switch abortion to an issue of state's rights, which is incrementally less authoritarian. Right?
I'm the type of anarchist who wants to push the Rothbard's Button. I'm not into incrementalism, as such. But I get it.
Trump may have appointed the judges who will switch abortion to an issue of state's rights, which is incrementally less authoritarian. Right?
Tbh, I very much doubt it. Recent history suggests that Republicans really care little about state's rights issues. The judges selected by Trump will be more aligned with the Republican party than with ideals about state's rights, so they will vote based on party desires when those desires come into conflict with state's rights (as will happen from time to time).
In fact, most Americans view themselves as Americans rather than citizens of a particular state, so it is to be expected that state's rights is more of a political talking point than a strongly held belief.
As a citizen of the US, you expect to be able to move freely between the states, and you don't want the laws to vary when you do: that is just a PITA. What everyone wants is the rules they want, not "your rules there" and "my rules here".
Of course, there are a few US people who actually choose a state because of the local laws, but that is a miniscule percentage of the population. Family, jobs, and weather are the big determinants for where most people choose to reside in the US.
Also, states in the US don't really function as experiments in politics and economics that might meet that incrementalism idea. State laws are mostly similar across states (even codified in "model laws" that are adopted by most states). The major difference isn't laws but political leadership, which controls where money gets funneled, but not true differences of importance in governance models and laws. And big political money still flows from the federal level rather than the state level (which is also how the federal government can exert enormous control over states regardless of state's rights).
I don't think that incrementalism was ever even the intent. The true reason for the concession of state's rights was to get enough agreement that there could be a United States of America at a time when people really did have a strong affiliation to their state (and powerful leaders who controlled them) and were not yet completely certain they were Americans first.
I do not.
But the weird thing is how many voluntarists and anarchists were easily fooled by a stupid and very obvious authoritarian like Trump, just because he paid lip-service to their beliefs . Maybe they were starving for approval of their ideas, so they became excited when someone on the political stage embraced some of the common conspiracy theories that tend to have followings in anarchist groups.
I guess it worked for right-wing Christians too, come to think of it. Trump only paid lip service to Christian ideals, while trampling all over them very publicly in his personal life.
But in that case I think it was all about abortion. Christian leaders knew that pro-abortion groups held the majority in the US and changes to abortion laws could only be achieved by non-democratic action. And because Christian leaders have a lot of political control over their flock, they can get them to vote for anyone with enough effort.
I'm with you. However, I observe an incrementalism argument. Trump may have appointed the judges who will switch abortion to an issue of state's rights, which is incrementally less authoritarian. Right?
I'm the type of anarchist who wants to push the Rothbard's Button. I'm not into incrementalism, as such. But I get it.
Tbh, I very much doubt it. Recent history suggests that Republicans really care little about state's rights issues. The judges selected by Trump will be more aligned with the Republican party than with ideals about state's rights, so they will vote based on party desires when those desires come into conflict with state's rights (as will happen from time to time).
In fact, most Americans view themselves as Americans rather than citizens of a particular state, so it is to be expected that state's rights is more of a political talking point than a strongly held belief.
As a citizen of the US, you expect to be able to move freely between the states, and you don't want the laws to vary when you do: that is just a PITA. What everyone wants is the rules they want, not "your rules there" and "my rules here".
Of course, there are a few US people who actually choose a state because of the local laws, but that is a miniscule percentage of the population. Family, jobs, and weather are the big determinants for where most people choose to reside in the US.
Also, states in the US don't really function as experiments in politics and economics that might meet that incrementalism idea. State laws are mostly similar across states (even codified in "model laws" that are adopted by most states). The major difference isn't laws but political leadership, which controls where money gets funneled, but not true differences of importance in governance models and laws. And big political money still flows from the federal level rather than the state level (which is also how the federal government can exert enormous control over states regardless of state's rights).
I don't think that incrementalism was ever even the intent. The true reason for the concession of state's rights was to get enough agreement that there could be a United States of America at a time when people really did have a strong affiliation to their state (and powerful leaders who controlled them) and were not yet completely certain they were Americans first.