5 ms·

I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'm very happy to see some inkling that the Constitution has not been all but completely flushed down the crapper by this a

by fixxer 13y ago

I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'm very happy to see some inkling that the Constitution has not been all but completely flushed down the crapper by this and the previous administration. Any opinions on Rand Paul? I hear a lot of talk, but I'm not seeing any action.

Karunamon 13y ago
Well, since you asked.. he unfortunately holds a lot of the more distasteful stances that Ron does (in short, tyranny and rights violations is okay if exercised at the state, rather than federal level)
- redblacktree 13y ago
  This is not really an argument, just something to think about: Local government is a lot easier to affect, as a citizen.
  - fixxer 13y ago
    Agreed, so long we have mobility. The People's Republic of Chicago would charge an "exit tax" on businesses that leave if they could.
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    That could cut both ways. Easier to affect in both good or bad ways, I mean. I do agree that simply delineated systems are at least easier to understand and hold "accountable" though.
- mchusma 13y ago
  You really need to compare him to the baseline politician. In that comparison, Ron Paul in general has advocated quite a record against tyranny and rights violations, including standing up to privacy violations, government control of printing money, and conducting war to expand power and violate rights. In fact, almost the exact opposity of tyranny and rights violations. Definition of tyranny according to Wikipedia. "an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty" His support of state rights was always (this is my perception) based off: in theory, the constitution and in practice, the idea that government at the lowest levels (and free movement between governments) is the best way to fight tyranny and support human rights.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    The nuttiness (and what disqualifies the Pauls and other big-L Libertarians from serious consideration, IMAO) comes in where they refuse to recognize any possible benefit from having a federal government at all. For instance, Ron is famously on record as saying he opposed the civil rights laws because they were enacted at the federal level. In his ideal world, there would be no unifying authority between the states, making things as simple as driver's licenses a pain in the ass, let alone the recent rights fights we're having now. Imagine what you'd be losing - all constitutional rights gone. Full faith and credit clause, gone. We go from being the United States of America to the States of America. Without a federal government, it's just a collection of countries who happen to share the same landmass.

by fixxer 13y ago

Karunamon 13y ago

Well, since you asked.. he unfortunately holds a lot of the more distasteful stances that Ron does (in short, tyranny and rights violations is okay if exercised at the state, rather than federal level)

redblacktree 13y ago
This is not really an argument, just something to think about: Local government is a lot easier to affect, as a citizen.
- fixxer 13y ago
  Agreed, so long we have mobility. The People's Republic of Chicago would charge an "exit tax" on businesses that leave if they could.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  That could cut both ways. Easier to affect in both good or bad ways, I mean. I do agree that simply delineated systems are at least easier to understand and hold "accountable" though.
mchusma 13y ago
You really need to compare him to the baseline politician. In that comparison, Ron Paul in general has advocated quite a record against tyranny and rights violations, including standing up to privacy violations, government control of printing money, and conducting war to expand power and violate rights. In fact, almost the exact opposity of tyranny and rights violations. Definition of tyranny according to Wikipedia. "an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, and/or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty" His support of state rights was always (this is my perception) based off: in theory, the constitution and in practice, the idea that government at the lowest levels (and free movement between governments) is the best way to fight tyranny and support human rights.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  The nuttiness (and what disqualifies the Pauls and other big-L Libertarians from serious consideration, IMAO) comes in where they refuse to recognize any possible benefit from having a federal government at all. For instance, Ron is famously on record as saying he opposed the civil rights laws because they were enacted at the federal level. In his ideal world, there would be no unifying authority between the states, making things as simple as driver's licenses a pain in the ass, let alone the recent rights fights we're having now. Imagine what you'd be losing - all constitutional rights gone. Full faith and credit clause, gone. We go from being the United States of America to the States of America. Without a federal government, it's just a collection of countries who happen to share the same landmass.