The mirror state counterplan is a straightforward form of negative refutation used in debate in which the negative team proposes that each state enact a miniature version of the affirmative plan that was to be adopted on the federal level. For example, the 1981-82 national debate proposition resolved that the federal government should significantly curtail the powers of labor unions in the United States. A mirror state counterplan would call for the states to significantly curtail the powers of labor unions within their borders. Negative teams can use the mirror state counterplan and still fulfill the general requirements that negative counterproposals must meet: nontopicality, mutual exclusivity, and superiority. A mirror state counterplan can also fulfill the particular requisites inherent in the specific type of policy option. Recent criticism of the mirror state counterplan by Dempsey and Hartmann argues that fiat power is unrealistic because all fifty states would not adopt a law on their own and if they did, the laws would not be uniform. This confuses "would" with "should": fiat power lies within the realm of physical possibility and is limited to the "scope of could." Furthermore, laws need not be uniform, but solvent and effective. Dempsey and Hartmann assume that mirror state counterplan laws would not be solvent because they are not identical. Their criticism of the mirror state counterplan rests on these interrelated misconceptions about the nature of fiat power. The mirror state counterplan is an old but valid form of negative refutation. (SRT)