Why are some so-called "libertarians" for States' so-called "rights" even when they violate individual rights?

Question

I've noticed this out of more and more people who call themselves libertarians. The Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr defended the state of Georgia's atrocious act of jailing a 17-year-old honor roll student for having consensual oral s*x with his 15-year-old girlfriend ( http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/46/barr-expresses-condolences-to-helms-family/ ).

In more radical "libertarian" circles, Stephan Kinsella and Kevin Gutzman pretend that incorporation is not in the Constitution and that DC is a "quasi-state" and therefore that the recent decision upholding the 2nd Amendment is wrong ( http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/18/gun-control-the-second-amendment/ ).

How can a "libertarian" defend the "right" of a state to violate individual rights?

Answer 1

There is NO "individual right" to rape, not even statutory rape.

Answer 2

I agree with you for the most part.  While I agree the jailing of the 17 year old is ridiculous, I still have reservations with the feds trying to get involved too much with state laws especially here since it is complicated--  the 15 year old is still a minor.  In general, the more complicated the issue, the more local or state law should abide.  

Also the feds can intervene with states in the opposite manner-- restricting individual rights or intervene and lead to more legislation, while not intended,  which can serve to limit individual rights.  Plus, more fed involvement leads to more media coverage and sensationalism and more ignorance from Joe Q Public.

I never liked Helms, I guess he sends that statement out of his ties with him.

I agree with you on the "quasi-state" deal.  I don't think DC can be considered a state or "state-like".

As for Bob Barr, I think he is good, but of course, he may not be as "libertarian" as most would like.  The question here is:  would a more "pure libertarian" be electable?  Sometimes pragmatism works best I think in this case.  He has name recognition, is intelligent and can get media coverage.  He also has experience, inside connections and could work with Congress.  

Shrinking government can be a start and it will take a while for the average voter to really understand and get comfortable with libertarian principles and ideas.  No one person could hijack the LP anyway, since it is based on sound principles.  One last thing, while I don't want the LP to expand too much, I think there is plenty of room for debate on some issues, examples being abortion and immigration.

Answer 3

You obviously didn't read any of those blogs.  To bad none of them support any of what your talking about.  That kinda makes it easy to prove you wrong, but then maybe not because your obviously to ignorant and not intelligent enough to have dialog.

Answer 4

go back and reread your wrong

and while i am definitely not happy with Barr he is a better chance to work for the citizens than the other 2