The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know

blackascoal said:
Would you possibly be suggesting that the word "libertarian" existed before the word "liberal", or that "libertarianism" existed before "liberalism"?

I am well aware of the differences between liberalism and libertarianism and they aren't even close in their root foundation. Liberalism is based on a philosophy of the commonwealth of the whole, while libertarianism is based on the concept of the individual. In fact, libertarianism would be more correctly called "individualism" .. but I guess that didn't have the same ring to it and gave away its real core belief. It is in fact, a bastardization of the word "liberty" as it has no thought for the liberty of others or the commomwealth of the nation.

The core values of liberalism and libertarianism don't exist on the same planet. The libertarian would argue FOR chid labor. After all, it is a child's right to work without "force" from the government imposing restrictions, and you can depend on "the market" to do the right thing. Liberals would find such thought demonic. It's a belief in "moral" capitalism, which have never existed and demonstrates no understanding of capitalism. We can thank liberalism and the struggles of workers for the abolition of child labor, not the "wisdom" of the free market, which thrives off of cheap labor, including children.

With all due respect, libertarianism exists in an ahistorical bubble of myopic whimsical beliefs, devoid of any memory or knowledge of a long train of abuses by the free market that liberalism and social activism worked to correct. It's a philosophy devoid of any socio-ethical understandings and which bends over and drops its pants to unfettered capitalism.

Perhaps you should read Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" or the writings of Einstein on socio-ethical responsibility.

Nor do I think you know Tom Paine as well as you think you do. Paine championed worker's rights, CHAMPIONED SOCIAL SECURITY, fought for the abolition of slavery and racial equality, campaigned for women's equality, CHAMPIONED PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, campaigned against big businessn, and a host of other social reforms. In other words, he had a socio-ethical understanding of society which is absent from the libertarian mind. Perhaps you should read his "Rights of Man" before you go off stating his positions.
Click to expand...


I've read Zinn's The People's History and that is a must-read. I've also read a lot of Paine (i have his collected works, including of course, the rights of man, in the Library of America edition), but I've never read Einstein. I will have to do that, that sounds very interesting. There is a very well-reviewed new biography of him out too. Now that you mention him in this context, maybe I will pick that up too.
 
blackascoal said:
Would you possibly be suggesting that the word "libertarian" existed before the word "liberal", or that "libertarianism" existed before "liberalism"?

I am well aware of the differences between liberalism and libertarianism and they aren't even close in their root foundation. Liberalism is based on a philosophy of the commonwealth of the whole, while libertarianism is based on the concept of the individual. In fact, libertarianism would be more correctly called "individualism" .. but I guess that didn't have the same ring to it and gave away its real core belief. It is in fact, a bastardization of the word "liberty" as it has no thought for the liberty of others or the commomwealth of the nation.

The core values of liberalism and libertarianism don't exist on the same planet. The libertarian would argue FOR chid labor. After all, it is a child's right to work without "force" from the government imposing restrictions, and you can depend on "the market" to do the right thing. Liberals would find such thought demonic. It's a belief in "moral" capitalism, which have never existed and demonstrates no understanding of capitalism. We can thank liberalism and the struggles of workers for the abolition of child labor, not the "wisdom" of the free market, which thrives off of cheap labor, including children.

With all due respect, libertarianism exists in an ahistorical bubble of myopic whimsical beliefs, devoid of any memory or knowledge of a long train of abuses by the free market that liberalism and social activism worked to correct. It's a philosophy devoid of any socio-ethical understandings and which bends over and drops its pants to unfettered capitalism.

Perhaps you should read Howard Zinn's "The People's History of the United States" or the writings of Einstein on socio-ethical responsibility.

Nor do I think you know Tom Paine as well as you think you do. Paine championed worker's rights, CHAMPIONED SOCIAL SECURITY, fought for the abolition of slavery and racial equality, campaigned for women's equality, CHAMPIONED PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, campaigned against big businessn, and a host of other social reforms. In other words, he had a socio-ethical understanding of society which is absent from the libertarian mind. Perhaps you should read his "Rights of Man" before you go off stating his positions.
Click to expand...


Awesome! You said this so well. Frankly, I get real tired of Libertarians claiming to be the direct ideological descendants of Paine, Madison, and Jefferson.

As you so clearly state, it just ain't so.
 
BTW - Capitalism is not "Free Market" a capitalistic society is one which the government invests in private companies, as our current one does. With research money, farm subsidies, etc.

A true free market would have none of that.
 
On the honorable commemoration to Rosa Parks, this idiot found a way to vote against even that .. which passed the House 424 - 1. There is no intelligence in that.

I'm glad you brought this up. Sounds awful huh? How could a man choose not to honor Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks is a hero who should be recognized for her fight against injustice. He must be bigoted or support segregation right?

No not at all. Ron Paul may have been inspired by a statesman from a century before who decided to make a stand on principle.

Please give this a read

http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

It tells a story of Congressman Crockett who was a lone dissenting voice against an appropriation being made to benefit the widow of a Naval Officer. Crockett challenged his fellow Congressman to each chip in a weeks pay to pay for the benefit. Congressman Crockett gladly did so but to his chagrin he found that his fellow lawmakers not as eager to do so. This story tells that it is easy to laud and award and give money when it is not their money. Congressman who speak of charity and goodwill find themselves rather stingy when not digging into their own pockets.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

The award for Rosa Parks is the congressional gold medal of honor and is not free. It is not a mere comendation but requires an outlay of money.

Ron Paul has consistently voted against them as they cost around 30000 dollars to give.

He has voted against one for Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and even fellow limited government advocate Ronald Reagan.

The man is consistent.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm

* Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan's publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it's proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

* I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.

* Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution--a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.

* In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan's advocacy for limited government, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan's stated convictions.

* It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people's money.

I respect Congressman Paul for his integrity and his comittment to principles instead of what feels good or looks good.

It takes a lot of courage to a lone dissenting vote against an award for someone like Rosa Parks and I find that courage admirable especially since it is done in the defense of a higher principle.

People like Rosa Parks or Mother Teresa have made a contribution to humanity that is plain for all to see and a lack of a $30,000 dollar award does nothing to diminish their service.

I admire Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa highly but I would have done the same as Paul. When any bill comes up for a vote on the house floor a faithful servant of the American public shoudl ask is this bill needed. Not would it be nice, would is be a good sign would it be convenient. No it should be if it is needed. What is the harm done by failure to award a congressional medal what is the good caused by it. Is the impact that Rosa Parks made on our nation any bit diminished by lack of an expensive medal? Is in enhanced by its award? The answer to both is no. So why should such a large amount of money be used in such a way when it would be perfectly acceptable to not do in the first place?

I ask you to consider the deeper meaning attached to Paul's votes.
 
This was just Ron Paul being an ass.

The Congressional Gold Medal of Honor has been given by Congress to people throughout our 200 year history. Including George Washington.
 
Awesome! You said this so well. Frankly, I get real tired of Libertarians claiming to be the direct ideological descendants of Paine, Madison, and Jefferson.

As you so clearly state, it just ain't so.

I can't speak for others but I am. I agree more with Paine, Madison and Jefferson than I think you, Darla or BAC would.

Even Paines very liberal positions I accept often. His argument for Social security is quite sound and one I agree with. It is an idea that is part of the foundation of geolibertarianism which I advocate.
 
This was just Ron Paul being an ass.

The Congressional Gold Medal of Honor has been given by Congress to people throughout our 200 year history. Including George Washington.

That's nice. Do you have an argument against Pauls position or are you going to go the conservative route and claim tradition as justification? :p
 
By the way where do some of you get the idea that libertarianism support child labor or slave labor of all things. The latter especially being antithetical to libertarian ideals.

I don't know any libertarians who advocate children being completely free to make choices such as working in a steel factory. Such an assertion is ludicrous.

Also many seem to think libertarianism means allowing corporations to do whatever they wish. We are not anarchists. The libertarian standard hold groups of people including corporations to the same standards of conduct as individuals. A chemical company may not poison your drinking water any more than I would be permitted to poor mercury into your soda.

Where people get such ideas is beyond me. It is fallacious. Any purported libertarian who would advocate different standards isn't a libertarian at all. He would be a Republican.
 
IHateGovernment said:
On the honorable commemoration to Rosa Parks, this idiot found a way to vote against even that .. which passed the House 424 - 1. There is no intelligence in that.

I'm glad you brought this up. Sounds awful huh? How could a man choose not to honor Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks is a hero who should be recognized for her fight against injustice. He must be bigoted or support segregation right?

No not at all. Ron Paul may have been inspired by a statesman from a century before who decided to make a stand on principle.

Please give this a read

http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

It tells a story of Congressman Crockett who was a lone dissenting voice against an appropriation being made to benefit the widow of a Naval Officer. Crockett challenged his fellow Congressman to each chip in a weeks pay to pay for the benefit. Congressman Crockett gladly did so but to his chagrin he found that his fellow lawmakers not as eager to do so. This story tells that it is easy to laud and award and give money when it is not their money. Congressman who speak of charity and goodwill find themselves rather stingy when not digging into their own pockets.

Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

The award for Rosa Parks is the congressional gold medal of honor and is not free. It is not a mere comendation but requires an outlay of money.

Ron Paul has consistently voted against them as they cost around 30000 dollars to give.

He has voted against one for Rosa Parks, Mother Teresa, John Paul II, and even fellow limited government advocate Ronald Reagan.

The man is consistent.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm

* Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3591. At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan's publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it's proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for President in 1976. The United States enjoyed sustained economic prosperity and employment growth during Ronald Reagan's presidency.

* I must, however, oppose the Gold Medal for Ronald and Nancy Reagan because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's notion of the proper, limited role for the federal government.

* Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I would maintain my resolve and commitment to the Constitution--a Constitution, which only last year, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. In each of these instances, I offered to do a little more than uphold my constitutional oath.

* In fact, as a means of demonstrating my personal regard and enthusiasm for Ronald Reagan's advocacy for limited government, I invited each of these colleagues to match my private, personal contribution of $100 which, if accepted by the 435 Members of the House of Representatives, would more than satisfy the $30,000 cost necessary to mint and award a gold medal to Ronald and Nancy Reagan. To me, it seemed a particularly good opportunity to demonstrate one's genuine convictions by spending one's own money rather that of the taxpayers who remain free to contribute, at their own discretion, to commemorate the work of the Reagans. For the record, not a single Representative who solicited my support for spending taxpayer's money, was willing to contribute their own money to demonstrate their generosity and allegiance to the Reagan's stated convictions.

* It is, of course, very easy to be generous with the people's money.

I respect Congressman Paul for his integrity and his comittment to principles instead of what feels good or looks good.

It takes a lot of courage to a lone dissenting vote against an award for someone like Rosa Parks and I find that courage admirable especially since it is done in the defense of a higher principle.

People like Rosa Parks or Mother Teresa have made a contribution to humanity that is plain for all to see and a lack of a $30,000 dollar award does nothing to diminish their service.

I admire Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa highly but I would have done the same as Paul. When any bill comes up for a vote on the house floor a faithful servant of the American public shoudl ask is this bill needed. Not would it be nice, would is be a good sign would it be convenient. No it should be if it is needed. What is the harm done by failure to award a congressional medal what is the good caused by it. Is the impact that Rosa Parks made on our nation any bit diminished by lack of an expensive medal? Is in enhanced by its award? The answer to both is no. So why should such a large amount of money be used in such a way when it would be perfectly acceptable to not do in the first place?

I ask you to consider the deeper meaning attached to Paul's votes.
Click to expand...
Well stated!
 
IHateGovernment said:
This was just Ron Paul being an ass.

The Congressional Gold Medal of Honor has been given by Congress to people throughout our 200 year history. Including George Washington.

That's nice. Do you have an argument against Pauls position or are you going to go the conservative route and claim tradition as justification? :p
Click to expand...


Congress has appropriated money for monuments and medals since the very first days of the republic. Paul is being an idiot and an ass, for claiming congress can't or shouldn't do this for Rosa Parks.
 
IHateGovernment said:
By the way where do some of you get the idea that libertarianism support child labor or slave labor of all things. The latter especially being antithetical to libertarian ideals.

I don't know any libertarians who advocate children being completely free to make choices such as working in a steel factory. Such an assertion is ludicrous.

Also many seem to think libertarianism means allowing corporations to do whatever they wish. We are not anarchists. The libertarian standard hold groups of people including corporations to the same standards of conduct as individuals. A chemical company may not poison your drinking water any more than I would be permitted to poor mercury into your soda.

Where people get such ideas is beyond me. It is fallacious. Any purported libertarian who would advocate different standards isn't a libertarian at all. He would be a Republican.
Click to expand...



Libertarians are hostile to the New Deal. In fact, opposition to the New Deal, is why I think the american libertarian party came into existance in the 1950s.

Where do you think prohibitions against child labor came from? From the progressives and the New Deal.

I've never met a Libetarian who didn't want to overthrow the New Deal, and return the country to the alleged constitutional principles, prior to the New Deal.
 
Cypress said:
Congress has appropriated money for monuments and medals since the very first days of the republic. Paul is being an idiot and an ass, for claiming congress can't or shouldn't do this for Rosa Parks.
Click to expand...
The problem is you keep stressing this as if he didn't refuse to vote for them for others as well.

You can say he is doing it to be an ass, but he is clearly taking a consistent stance and voting on principle in these cases. You may disagree with him, but he isn't doing it because he just wanted to be an ass this one time because it was Rosa Parks.

I would have taken a $100 bill from my pocket.
 
Congress has appropriated money for monuments and medals since the very first days of the republic. Paul is being an idiot and an ass, for claiming congress can't or shouldn't do this for Rosa Parks.

This isn't an argument Cypress. It's something a conservative would say. Am I being an ass? I would do the same. Frankly with the way things are with our national debt and deficit I would not approve of one single expenditure that was not vital to the national interest. Spending money because it feels good or looks bad if you don't is not a great service to this nation. I think it also speaks volumes that Congressman who can easily afford to donate 100 dollars did not. I would.

30,000 dollars isn't a lot of money by government standards but it is a lot of money.

It can pay for four years of college.

It can buy numerous pieces of body armor.

It can buy crates full of medicine

It can pave miles of road

all things our nation needs more.
 

Libertarians are hostile to the New Deal. In fact, opposition to the New Deal, is why I think the american libertarian party came into existance in the 1950s.

Where do you think prohibitions against child labor came from? From the progressives and the New Deal.

I've never met a Libetarian who didn't want to overthrow the New Deal, and return the country to the alleged constitutional principles, prior to the New Deal.

This libertarian supports child labor laws. Ask Damocles, Beefy, Adam Weinberg, Warren, Watermark, RStringfield, Troglodyte and Digital Dave if they support child labor laws.

As for the constitutionality of the New Deal we've had this discussion before. You and I both know the sitting Supreme Court during FDR's tenure was bullied into accepting it. The act of a despot frankly.
 
IHateGovernment said:

Libertarians are hostile to the New Deal. In fact, opposition to the New Deal, is why I think the american libertarian party came into existance in the 1950s.

Where do you think prohibitions against child labor came from? From the progressives and the New Deal.

I've never met a Libetarian who didn't want to overthrow the New Deal, and return the country to the alleged constitutional principles, prior to the New Deal.

This libertarian supports child labor laws. Ask Damocles, Beefy, Adam Weinberg, Warren, Watermark, RStringfield, Troglodyte and Digital Dave if they support child labor laws.

As for the constitutionality of the New Deal we've had this discussion before. You and I both know the sitting Supreme Court during FDR's tenure was bullied into accepting it. The act of a despot frankly.
Click to expand...



But, you know IHG, that the standard Libertarian line is that companies, adults, and children (assuming parental consent) should be "free" to enter into any contract. Such as a labor contract. It's a matter of "individual freedom". The federal government can't regulate it.
 
Damocles said:
The problem is you keep stressing this as if he didn't refuse to vote for them for others as well.

You can say he is doing it to be an ass, but he is clearly taking a consistent stance and voting on principle in these cases. You may disagree with him, but he isn't doing it because he just wanted to be an ass this one time because it was Rosa Parks.

I would have taken a $100 bill from my pocket.
Click to expand...


I have no idea if Paul's position is "principled" or not.

The most cursory examination of the facts suggests that it's not. It's just sheer idiocy. Congrees, for two centuries, has routinely appropriated money for medals and monuments, without one single successful legal challenge to its constitutionality.
 
Most libertarians make exceptions for children. Only a dumbass would say a five year old child could have the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision.

That is also why most libertarians support state funded education as it allows children to be equipped to make decisions as adults.

Even Dano supports universal education for children.
 
The most cursory examination of the facts suggests that it's not. It's just sheer idiocy. Congrees, for two centuries, has routinely appropriated money for medals and monuments, without one single successful legal challenge to its constitutionality.

Why do you keep saying this? Do you accept this argument from a person who opposes gay marriage who says marriage has been a man and a woman for two millenia?
 
Einstein wrote extensively on what he believed to be our socio-ethical responsibilities to each other, and the limitations of science.

Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

excerpt --

"Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

http://www.bestcyrano.org/mrEinstein5.49.htm

The man was absolutely brilliant and way ahead of his time.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Most libertarians make exceptions for children. Only a dumbass would say a five year old child could have the requisite knowledge to make an informed decision.

That is also why most libertarians support state funded education as it allows children to be equipped to make decisions as adults.

Even Dano supports universal education for children.
Click to expand...


According to the libertarians I've met in cyberspace, the Federal Government has NO authority to place a prohibition on child labor. It's not one of the "enumerated rights" given to Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top