Quote:In this example, a Florida vs. Georgia lawsuit would need to happen at the Federal level. You could argue the effectiveness of the EPA, but the reality would be that many environmental issues will still need to be settled at the Federal level in this scenario. It's not removing absolute Federal intervention as much as it's removing direct intervention.


I like Libertarianism in theory, because it makes a lot of sense in theory, but I personally feel many of the ideas rely too heavily on the idea that everyone is automatically going to work for the common good since there's no Federal assistance.



This may be a discussion that goes into semantics because I'm going back in time while you're discussing the present, but I feel it makes my point. The problem I have with this idea is that this type of economic Darwinism in the early/middle twentieth century would have led to practically no businesses accepting black people into their stores. In cities like Atlanta, there were storeowners who were not against racial mixing, but knew that if they changed their policies to reflect that, the majority of their white customers would have simply chose to give their business to a store that restricted blacks. If they turned away the segregationist whites in favor of any minorities and whites who were integrationist they would have lost a substantial amount of potential profit. Economic Darwinism would have promoted that status quo rather than progressing the businesses into integration.


I'm also curious to know your opinion on Federal antitrust laws that promote fair competition and block monopolies.