6 ms·

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian

by fl3tch 15y ago

> He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. People talk about how he wants to legalize drugs, but he would be perfectly fine with state governments creating even more draconian drug laws.

maratd 15y ago
> He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.
- dreamdu5t 15y ago
  The fetus is trespassing on the women's body, and it would be self-defense to remove the invader.
  - maratd 15y ago
    You invite your friend to your home for a party. Your guest walked to your home. A blizzard starts outside. Your friend does something that pisses you off. You kick him out of your home, into the blizzard. He dies as a result. Were you just asserting your property rights or did you commit murder?
    - dreamdu5t 15y ago
      When you tell your guest to leave, and they won't, or they don't have anyone to pick them up, and you wanted them gone, you would forcibly remove them from your home and place them outside.
  - stcredzero 15y ago
    That's only going to work in US politics if someone can figure out a way to remove the fetus witha gun.
- shasta 15y ago
  You know that bacteria is "life", right? Does the government need to protect them? Obviously you intend "human life", but equally obviously that doesn't just mean living human cells (scratching -- killing skin cells -- isn't murder). The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. On the contrary, it rather obviously doesn't.
  - maratd 15y ago
    > The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. Please let me know at which point it becomes obvious that it is a life worth protecting. It isn't so obvious to me. There is no physiological difference between a fetus that is in a mother's womb and an infant born a few minutes later.
scythe 15y ago
>he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy, and he holds to that position even when states pass laws he disagrees with. Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes; they're considered some of the freest countries in the world. This is a guy who thinks abortion is the most evil thing in the world and still opposes federal laws banning abortion because he thinks it's a state issue. I disagree with him about abortion, but the fact remains: he's not some scheming ne'er-do-well who wants to bring back Jim Crow laws, he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go. In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws. We've seen this with gay marriage, we've seen it with medical marijuana, and we've seen it with election reform (see also Calif. Prop. 14); we may very well soon see it with recreational marijuana.
- whycombine 15y ago
  he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go. Wouldn't that actually make him a federalist? Federalists support the type of government called a federation, which is what the Articles of Confederation originally created and the Constitution sort of maintained. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist
- fl3tch 15y ago
  > Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes But the South was. You're ignoring the evidence of history. Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse, and it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws. Edit: > No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. He's a states rights guy because he's a Christian fundamentalist who wants the power to enforce his provincial values on others, and the federal government gets in the way of that.
joshfraser 15y ago
It's easier to switch states than to switch countries. If you don't like the draconian laws in your state you can move to another one that shares your views.
- cbs 15y ago
  And when I'm out of states that share my views?
  - adbge 15y ago
    Try voting.
    - cbs 15y ago
      Well yeah. Thats kind of my point. I was showing the silliness of the statement I was replying to, that somehow if I don't like the laws of my state, I can just up and move to one that does instead of having to try and affect legislative change.
  - scythe 15y ago
    Wouldn't you then also be in the wrong country? How could every single state oppose you and the federal government agree?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ithought 15y ago
This is a fantastical framing of the incorporation doctrine. Do you even understand the debate or how historically your position is wrong? Do you realize that as of today not all of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, only some? I don't think states can legally violate natural rights and I think they should adopt and ratify their own Bill of Rights but this hyperbolic sensationalism overlooks the historical context and distorts the original intent of the Constitution. Ron Paul is not against the incorporation doctrine so the states can legally discriminate. He's against it because it's not how the Constitution was written, see history. Our rights pre-exist the Constitution and the states.

by fl3tch 15y ago

maratd 15y ago

> He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.

dreamdu5t 15y ago
The fetus is trespassing on the women's body, and it would be self-defense to remove the invader.
- maratd 15y ago
  You invite your friend to your home for a party. Your guest walked to your home. A blizzard starts outside. Your friend does something that pisses you off. You kick him out of your home, into the blizzard. He dies as a result. Were you just asserting your property rights or did you commit murder?
  - dreamdu5t 15y ago
    When you tell your guest to leave, and they won't, or they don't have anyone to pick them up, and you wanted them gone, you would forcibly remove them from your home and place them outside.
- stcredzero 15y ago
  That's only going to work in US politics if someone can figure out a way to remove the fetus witha gun.
shasta 15y ago
You know that bacteria is "life", right? Does the government need to protect them? Obviously you intend "human life", but equally obviously that doesn't just mean living human cells (scratching -- killing skin cells -- isn't murder). The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. On the contrary, it rather obviously doesn't.
- maratd 15y ago
  > The valuable thing worth protecting doesn't obviously begin at conception. Please let me know at which point it becomes obvious that it is a life worth protecting. It isn't so obvious to me. There is no physiological difference between a fetus that is in a mother's womb and an infant born a few minutes later.

scythe 15y ago

>he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy, and he holds to that position even when states pass laws he disagrees with. Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes; they're considered some of the freest countries in the world. This is a guy who thinks abortion is the most evil thing in the world and still opposes federal laws banning abortion because he thinks it's a state issue. I disagree with him about abortion, but the fact remains: he's not some scheming ne'er-do-well who wants to bring back Jim Crow laws, he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go. In the majority of recent, real-world instances, local laws have tended to be more liberal than federal laws. We've seen this with gay marriage, we've seen it with medical marijuana, and we've seen it with election reform (see also Calif. Prop. 14); we may very well soon see it with recreational marijuana.

whycombine 15y ago
he's a consistent, ideological antifederalist who thinks decentralization is the way to go. Wouldn't that actually make him a federalist? Federalists support the type of government called a federation, which is what the Articles of Confederation originally created and the Constitution sort of maintained. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist
fl3tch 15y ago
> Look, the two most decentralized first-world countries that I can think of are Canada and Switzerland. These are not draconian racist hellholes But the South was. You're ignoring the evidence of history. Canada and Switzerland are simply much less diverse, and it's pretty naive to think that racists in Mississippi and Alabama, who never went away, wouldn't seize on the chance to reinstitute something resembling Jim Crow laws. Edit: > No, he's a states rights guy because he's a states rights guy The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club. He's a states rights guy because he's a Christian fundamentalist who wants the power to enforce his provincial values on others, and the federal government gets in the way of that.

joshfraser 15y ago

It's easier to switch states than to switch countries. If you don't like the draconian laws in your state you can move to another one that shares your views.

cbs 15y ago
And when I'm out of states that share my views?
- adbge 15y ago
  Try voting.
  - cbs 15y ago
    Well yeah. Thats kind of my point. I was showing the silliness of the statement I was replying to, that somehow if I don't like the laws of my state, I can just up and move to one that does instead of having to try and affect legislative change.
- scythe 15y ago
  Wouldn't you then also be in the wrong country? How could every single state oppose you and the federal government agree?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

ithought 15y ago

This is a fantastical framing of the incorporation doctrine. Do you even understand the debate or how historically your position is wrong? Do you realize that as of today not all of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, only some? I don't think states can legally violate natural rights and I think they should adopt and ratify their own Bill of Rights but this hyperbolic sensationalism overlooks the historical context and distorts the original intent of the Constitution. Ron Paul is not against the incorporation doctrine so the states can legally discriminate. He's against it because it's not how the Constitution was written, see history. Our rights pre-exist the Constitution and the states.