Ugh. No, an absolute Libertarian would support the former.
I dunno about that. I think gay people have the right to get married, for instance. I don't think people should deny them the ability to do so. But some people would be able to have a chance at doing that if they're able to vote on whether or not it should be allowed. For those who think marrying whomever you want is a right (or making decisions about your own body or smoking pot or whatever), the idea of people coming along to stop it, be it other civilians, local/state governments, or the federal government, is kind of bothersome, isn't it?
Course, that's getting into anarchy a bit there, come to think of it...
Certainly the people do have power and should always have power. But there's a reason there was a balance between them, the states, and the federal government. People often forget that our founding fathers, as much as they hated too much federal power, also got scared at the idea of civilians having too much power, too. They felt there needed to be a proper balance created so that both sides were able to get what they wanted out of the deal.
Now, I'll grant you that they came up with that idea in theory and didn't always execute it properly over time, and our government has indeed accumulated power over time that many could argue would be intrusive/overreaching. Certainly the federal government has its share of shit it needs to answer for and change, no question. I have no problem whatsoever with bringing some power back to the people. But I also know that to leave power solely in their hands, or in the hands of state and local governments, won't always solve the problems, either, because as pointed out, state/local governments can be just as inept, and civilians' ideas can sometimes be...well...interesting, to put it nicely.
"States' rights" were an argument in the Civil War, for instance. Of course, we all know what right certain states were arguing FOR. So there's a classic example of where "states' rights" can be problematic.
As an aside I'm also tired of the Tea Party being called the Tea Party - they are Republicans and I am not sure how the branding war was lost there. They vote like Republicans, for Republicans and are Republicans until such a time as they decide to break away and form an independent, third party. Until then, they're the GOP and they should be made to own it.
Heck, I'd like the Tea Party to stop calling itself that because I'm convinced many of them don't know what even happened at the original Tea Party or what it was about.
Media =/= the media. The media hates Ron Paul. That's quite evident. They refuse to acknowledge him, and often talk about the 'three candidates in the race'.
I do have to agree with you on this. Whether one likes him or not, he IS a legitimate candidate. He deserves as much airtime as any of the other guys running.