Bearing in mind that libertarian has many different variations, IMO, libertarianism is represented much more by the Ninth Amendment than by the Tenth Amendment. Those Tenthers, grrrr! Try picking up The Forgotten Ninth Amendment. A Call for Legislative and Judicial Recognition of Rights under Social Conditions of Today by Bennett Patterson sometime if you want to grok it.

I don't know how you can put Che with Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. How does he relate to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience? :P

It's too bad lazy, uneducated people interested only in preserving their ability to take from everyone else get the same amount of say in who is our president as does the rest of the population.

Oh well, a republic is the lesser of the many kinds of evils that are established government I suppose.

I do not know what that Thoreau's Civil Disobediance is but what I meant that we need someone that will get things done without fear of something and make his mark on history.

Besides there are people who praise Che, Nelson Mendela comes to mind.

With the demographics what they are you're going to have to get used to thinking of a society as one unit helping each other or you're going to be bitter and angry for a long time to come.

does obama come with steam keys?

In your sarcasm, there is more truth than you realise. Yes, "revolutions" are terrorism. However popular they are with the public. It's still overthrowing a regime, elected or not.

The American revolution wasn't really about taxes (the tea tax had been repealed months before that tea smuggler in Boston threw a boatload into the harbour); or representation when making laws. What it WAS about, was Britain had passed laws abolishing slavery, and attacking the natives, and stealing native lands from them. Certain land speculators, like Mr. G. Washington did not like that. Not one little bit.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 stops the seizure of Indian lands by speculators from the Thirteen Colonies and established a frontier, essentially the Appalachian Mountains, to the west of which vast tracts of land are to be preserved in perpetuity where Indian nations will be able to carry on their traditional way of life. Additionally, the proclamation reserved to the Crown the exclusive right to purchase land from native Americans.

George Washington.
Captain William Crawford.
Benjamin Franklin.
Vandalia Company.
John Adams.
Thomas Jefferson.
The Treaty of Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois.
The Treaty of Hard Labor with the Cherokee.
The Treaty of Pensacola with the Cree.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
That all men are created equal."
-Slave-owner, ethnic cleanser, sexual abuser and bullshit artist, Thomas Jefferson

Best. Post. Evar.

I must have some legal implications like who has to decide in case of an emergency or who inherits automatically or who takes care of the kids or who gets them after a divorce...

The confusing thing is that the law seems to be different within one single country.

Why is the concept of federalism confusing to a German?

Being married in one state and not being married in another raises many problems, especially with polygamy, with heritage (what if one of the gay nupturients has real estate in a state that doesn't seem this as marriage?)

It can lead to a major legal shitstorm in many cases. It creates problems with country to country relations, but in such small travel distances like from state to state or land to land... Maybe that's because he's concerned.

And we deify him to this day, in schools even. Baffling.

Given that most states are the size of an average European country, it's less of a concern than you might think. There are many Americans that never ever leave their state in their lives, and US states are exceedingly autonomous, even in comparison to Germany, which is basically the most federalistic nation in Europe.

No, seriously.

Because it's about marriage, not about the local number of school years. It just results in too many legal problems that need to be solved somehow resulting either in chaos or in very complex situations. In my opinion there are things that should not be decided on a federal level - such as what constitutes a marriage.

If you see the US as a bunch of more or less independent territories, than the funny question is which laws of part X is part Y accepting and which ones not. The possible interactions scale quadratically with the number of states.

Example: Minnesota could accept the Marriage contract of Nevada but not the one of California.

And the French Revolution?