5 ms·

It's interesting to think about consistency as something that is necessarily valued. I think the naive rationale goes something like this, "Well a politician sh

by llambda 15y ago

It's interesting to think about consistency as something that is necessarily valued. I think the naive rationale goes something like this, "Well a politician should be consistent because they must represent the will of the constituency which elected them, thereby enfranchising those people and validating the institution of democracy." However, that said, consistency can be a burden. Imagine this applied to the startup world. I shudder to think of a founder who is unwavering in their convictions about their business model, i.e. wholly uncompromising. Today things like lean are popular methods that advocate quick iteration as your data changes, nearly the opposite of holding one and only one consistent position. But being dynamic and changing your product as new data are available is arguably a key strategy to avoiding waste and more importantly, producing something people actually want. I suppose then you could argue it really isn't the same as someone like Paul who is advocating for constitutional consistency. But on the other hand the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. That is to say that the document was written with a certain intent, so long as we respect that essence we should be able to work within that as a framework that isn't wholly limiting to the literal wording; in fact the constitution has already been amended, if that's what it takes to convince purists then maybe that's what should happen. Ron Paul is saying, quite literally, that he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution, i.e. most federal programs should be stopped as they are "illegal".

CWuestefeld 15y ago
he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level. For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states). So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states. I'm very concerned with your statement: the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.
- shibboleth 15y ago
  A few points to mention.. there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111. I'm also concerned with your statements regarding abortion et al. These are serious issues that significantly impact people's lives. We shouldn't have a "playground" or a labyrinth of "mini laboratories" for such issues. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? It's economically beneficial, isn't it? Also this statement seems contradictory: "with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states." Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible. You say that we then pick the best result from the states, but that seems contradictory to Ron Paul's message. Finally, the Constitution was written by rich white individuals who were basically looking after their own well-being (I may be overcritical, but you can decide whether I am or not by reanalyzing it). This requires critical analysis and a historical background: but how many clauses benefit the rich? how many the poor? how many benefit slave owners? The constitution is a relatively vague document, and although I agree that some branches are overextending their powers (i.e. executive) I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today. Sorry if my wording seems harsh, I don't mean for it to be. I had to hastily write this in a couple minutes before I head out the door.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111 Any lawyers here to clarify? I looked this up [1], and find a couple of interesting things. First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction. Also, see [2] Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws to the conduct proscribed by this chapter, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding. So my best guess is that this stuff is applicable to DC, national parks, etc., but not to the states. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible. This creates a competitive situation between states. In the end, the most prosperous states will be those that can find the best equilibrium between positive and negative rights for the residents. Crank up the taxes too high, and you'll get mass exodus as with California today. But with them too low relative to expenses, the states can't provide necessary services (or wind up in significant debt, as we see with PIIGS in the EU; this suggests that balanced-budget rules are necessary for the states, which is a problem we'd need to overcome). It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship. I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today. In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs? When the changes are ad hoc, we get phenomena like GWB's power grabs around USA PATRIOT and other issues. In some cases these were decried by the other side, but a few years later, when power swung the other way, those that claimed to oppose the overreaches did nothing to right the problems, and indeed, have enjoyed exercising and even expanding those newly-minted powers themselves. So it looks to me like the ad hoc route has tremendous dangers. The only disadvantage I can see to the use of Article V is that it requires enough political support that those advocating the changes, although they don't admit it, don't believe they can get it (or so it seems to me). [1] http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1111 http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1111 [2] http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1092 http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1092
dantheman 15y ago
If people want to increase the scope of federal power to grant it a role in education or any other myriad of issues, then there is a clear process - pass a constitutional amendment granting it that power. For example, alcohol prohibition required an amendment yet somehow the war on drugs did not.

by llambda 15y ago

CWuestefeld 15y ago

he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level. For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states). So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states. I'm very concerned with your statement: the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.

shibboleth 15y ago
A few points to mention.. there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111. I'm also concerned with your statements regarding abortion et al. These are serious issues that significantly impact people's lives. We shouldn't have a "playground" or a labyrinth of "mini laboratories" for such issues. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? It's economically beneficial, isn't it? Also this statement seems contradictory: "with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states." Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible. You say that we then pick the best result from the states, but that seems contradictory to Ron Paul's message. Finally, the Constitution was written by rich white individuals who were basically looking after their own well-being (I may be overcritical, but you can decide whether I am or not by reanalyzing it). This requires critical analysis and a historical background: but how many clauses benefit the rich? how many the poor? how many benefit slave owners? The constitution is a relatively vague document, and although I agree that some branches are overextending their powers (i.e. executive) I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today. Sorry if my wording seems harsh, I don't mean for it to be. I had to hastily write this in a couple minutes before I head out the door.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  there is most definitely a federal law against murder: US Code Title 18 Section 1111 Any lawyers here to clarify? I looked this up [1], and find a couple of interesting things. First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction. Also, see [2] Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws to the conduct proscribed by this chapter, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding. So my best guess is that this stuff is applicable to DC, national parks, etc., but not to the states. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here. Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible. This creates a competitive situation between states. In the end, the most prosperous states will be those that can find the best equilibrium between positive and negative rights for the residents. Crank up the taxes too high, and you'll get mass exodus as with California today. But with them too low relative to expenses, the states can't provide necessary services (or wind up in significant debt, as we see with PIIGS in the EU; this suggests that balanced-budget rules are necessary for the states, which is a problem we'd need to overcome). It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship. I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today. In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs? When the changes are ad hoc, we get phenomena like GWB's power grabs around USA PATRIOT and other issues. In some cases these were decried by the other side, but a few years later, when power swung the other way, those that claimed to oppose the overreaches did nothing to right the problems, and indeed, have enjoyed exercising and even expanding those newly-minted powers themselves. So it looks to me like the ad hoc route has tremendous dangers. The only disadvantage I can see to the use of Article V is that it requires enough political support that those advocating the changes, although they don't admit it, don't believe they can get it (or so it seems to me). [1] http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1111 http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1111 [2] http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1092 http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-1092

dantheman 15y ago

If people want to increase the scope of federal power to grant it a role in education or any other myriad of issues, then there is a clear process - pass a constitutional amendment granting it that power. For example, alcohol prohibition required an amendment yet somehow the war on drugs did not.