Libertarian perspective: states' rights

In round 4, my opponent states:I would say that state governments would have to be even less limited than the federal government, because they, with the exception of certain cases, can only expand on government oppressionFirst, this isn't true. Thomas Woods 2010 book on nullification explains that states have the right to nullify federal laws they find unconstitutional. This is not some wishful theory. A number of nullification efforts are currently underway: State Marijuana Laws TSA NDAA: Liberty Preservation Act Health Care Freedom Act Food Freedom Act Intrastate Commerce Health Care Nullification Act Constitutional Tender Firearms Freedom Act 10th Amendment Resolutions REAL ID Defend the Guard Sheriffs First Legislation Cap and Trade/EPA Federal Tax Funds Act 10th Amendment Bills There are also significant historical examples of nullification: Embargoes (1807-1809) Conscription for The War of 181 The Second Bank of the United States (1825) The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 http://tenthamendmentcenter.com...http://www.libertyclassroom.com...Second, the whole idea of states' rights is to take powers away from the federal government and let states handle it. Given these facts, it doesn't make sense to argue that states only increase oppression. You can try to argue that some states will choose to be as oppressive as the federal government. But as I've stated already, it's relatively easy to move to another state, which will thwart states attempts to do that.My opponent states: "The federal government is not a monopoly" however I think you'd have a hard time convincing any legitimate libertarian scholar of that. As I stated in round 2, P1, it is much more difficult to move to another country than to another state. To get out from under the thumb of the federal government, you would need to renounce U.S. citizenship and attain citizenship in another country. This is time consuming and expensive. In addition, you would likely see family less, potentially have language barriers, etc. In addition, given a choice, I'd prefer to do battle with the state police rather than the NSA, FBI, DHS, CIA, ATF and the military.In round 1, my opponent mentions Ron Paul, who has been criticized for his states' rights stance. However, if Paul had started his political career as an anarcho-capitalist, I doubt he'd ever been elected. I believe Paul's true desires are probably closer to anarcho-capitalism than most think. In fact, he stated as much in the above youtube video:http://www.youtube.com...Q: "I know you stand for the Constitution, but what do you say to people who advocate self-government, rather than a return to the Constitution?"Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. I think that's really what my goal is."All libertarians must answer the question of where they fit on the scale between minimal government and anarchy. Some, like Hans Herman Hoppe, strive for the ultimate freedom of anarcho-capitalism, which I think is the ideal expression of libertarian principals. However, these libertarians face the problem of being labeled fringe and will find it difficult to build a broad audience. This isn't a practical tactic to take if you believe in the political system. Libertarians in Paul's camp are simply being pragmatists in this sense. My opponents last statement is:The relevance of my claim is that if the federal government is to relinquish power to the states, and the states proceed to oppress instead, nothing is accomplishedIn summary, I believe I've shown this is not what would happen. This statement completely discounts the affect competition vs monopoly. The beauty of a system with strong states rights is that states develop to fill the needs of citizens who hold vastly different views. If you are big government liberal, California fit's the bill. If you are libertarian, New Hampshire. Each state provides a test bed of ideas. In the end, the result is a smaller federal government and states who must compete for taxpayers dollars.