blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Another example of hiding behind the Constitution.
It made good sense, good policy, and is good for American history and people.
His vote against it 424-1
His vote against civil rights 414-1
That is unintelligent
The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
Another example of hiding behind the Constitution.
It made good sense, good policy, and is good for American history and people.
His vote against it 424-1
His vote against civil rights 414-1
That is unintelligent
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
There is no hiding behind the constitution. If something isn't permitted you can't in good conscience vote for it even if it is good. If it so good we can amend the constitution to allow it.
What is this vote against civil rights you speak of. Congressman Paul was not elected until after the civil rights era.
Beyond that you say hiding behind the constitution pejoritively. Is it your assertion that it is appropriate for lawmakers to ignore the law if they believe it to be for the higher good. The ends justify the means if you will.
This of course is why we have problems with Bush.
If we dont' roundly reject such an approach to the law we will continually face leaders who care nothing about the rule of law and just ignore it to replace their own idea of what is right.
Without the law we have no protection from people like Bush except for the wisdom of the American people.
2004 showed we can't count on that either.
What is this vote against civil rights you speak of. Congressman Paul was not elected until after the civil rights era.
Beyond that you say hiding behind the constitution pejoritively. Is it your assertion that it is appropriate for lawmakers to ignore the law if they believe it to be for the higher good. The ends justify the means if you will.
This of course is why we have problems with Bush.
If we dont' roundly reject such an approach to the law we will continually face leaders who care nothing about the rule of law and just ignore it to replace their own idea of what is right.
Without the law we have no protection from people like Bush except for the wisdom of the American people.
2004 showed we can't count on that either.
I have never heard anybody make any such argument in any libertarian circles. I haven't "heard" it on any of the boards which we have frenquented or do frequent. I haven't seen this argument made on any board out in "cyberspace". I call BS on this one, Cypress.
It just shows a deep-seated willful ignorance of libertarian thought, it isn't deep, it is just more "they are evil" rubbish.
The standard line you will hear from a libertarian is that a child hasn't the presense of thought or knowledge on which to base such a decision and that because of that lack this is one of the places that government should intervene.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
One pf the problems with libertarianism is that it's all over the place. Are you against government intrusion or not?
It would require governmnet intrusion, inspection, regulations, and FORCE to ensure that the chemical plant is operatiing as it should.
Ron Paul would eliminate that oversight right along with the FDA.
Where does libertarian hate of government begin and end? Who knows? It would seem a quite natural extension of libertarian ideology to believe that governmnet has no right to FORCE children nit to work or employers not to emplo children
Your angst about "where do people get such ideas" is from libertarians themselves is where we get such ideas. The defense has been "I'm not that kind of libertarian", but your showpiece Ron Paul most definately is.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
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.
that's correct. However any state could pass such a law. However I doubt many want to focus on repealing such a law. I am sure every state has also outlawed child labor since even the liberal decisions of the SCOTUS have said that interstate commerce can only apply to companies meeting a certain size.
We have also had this debate before Cypress. There isn't any part of the constitution that allows it. As we discussed the general welfare clause has to do with appropriation of funds not coercive law. This power may come from interstate commerce regulation powers however employment practices and commerce are not necessarily interstate in nature.
that's correct. However any state could pass such a law. However I doubt many want to focus on repealing such a law. I am sure every state has also outlawed child labor since even the liberal decisions of the SCOTUS have said that interstate commerce can only apply to companies meeting a certain size.
We have also had this debate before Cypress. There isn't any part of the constitution that allows it. As we discussed the general welfare clause has to do with appropriation of funds not coercive law. This power may come from interstate commerce regulation powers however employment practices and commerce are not necessarily interstate in nature.
Foolish, deliberately simple.
Libertarians say, direct victim = government intervention. There is the simple and short answer. Therefore laws against murder, or an attempt of such = good. Laws against homosexual marriage = bad. Laws to protect the victimization of children = good. Laws to protect adults from making stupid decisions = bad.
Yes, it would. I agree that the EPA should exist because many of the victims were across state lines deliberately to avoid state fines and other punishments.
When did he ever advocate the repeal of child labor laws?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
From the Libertarian Platform
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
***************
Nowhere in this platform is a child defined as anything and it doesn't require "evil" to assume that a child would be defined as an individual according to this ideology.
Additionally, as I stated, libertarians seem to have short memories and don't remember the abuses, even beyond child labor, that were addressed and solved by the COLLECTIVE, not individuals, and not the free market.
Battleborne
Terminator
Lol....
Sorry I just could not pass this up....Ron is a OBN who is against abortion...so he does fight to repeal 'Child Labor' laws enduced that is...good for him...
Sorry I just could not pass this up....Ron is a OBN who is against abortion...so he does fight to repeal 'Child Labor' laws enduced that is...good for him...
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
One pf the problems with libertarianism is that it's all over the place. Are you against government intrusion or not?
Depends. Are you for it or against it? You would give the same answer I did. I'm sure you wouldn't wnat the government intrusion into your bedroom right?
If you don't say depends you are either an anarchist or an extreme authoritarian.
It would require governmnet intrusion, inspection, regulations, and FORCE to ensure that the chemical plant is operatiing as it should.
If the company is using the public commons it can be construed as part of social contract to accept inspections. The chemical plant is initiating force if it release harmful agents into the ground water or air.
Have you run into geolibertarians yet? I accept almost all of their principles.
Ron Paul would eliminate that oversight right along with the FDA.
On that issue he is wrong. But I also doubt he would do it immediately. Paul most likely favors third party NGOs doing these inspections. They can work in some instances. Any effort to enact a change should obviously have an impact study conducted.
However I would agree that many inspection agencies especially the FDA need to have their power at least somewhat curbed. The FDA is part of why we have healthcare troubles in this nation.
Where doews libertarian hate of government begin and end?
Depends on who you ask. This one says its a necessary evil.
It would seem a quite natural extension of libertarian ideology to believe that governmnet has no right to FORCE children nit to work or employers not to emplo children
Perhaps but most libetarians see fraud as an initiation of force in the same way a direct assault is. Fraud is considered illegitimate because it causes a party to engage in an action they would not if they knew the truth. This means that libertarian philosophy doesn't limit itself to violation of the body but also the taking advantage of one's mental state.
Children cannot consent to working in a factory because they are not mature enough to reasonably make sound decisions. This is imperfect because some mature faster than others but a demarcation must be set. We as a society have settled on 18 for the time being.
Your angst about "where does people get such ideas" is from libertarians themselves is where we get such ideas. The defense has been "I'm not that kind of libertarian", but your showpiece Ron Paul most definately is.
I have never heard on one single libertarian who advocates children having full rights to engage in any contract. Ron Paul definitely doesn't so your above statement isn't true.
Ron Paul is what is called a conservative libertarian. What that means is that although he desires change to a more libertarian sociey he does not wish to do it with broad strokes as the infrastructure of our current system has been in place for decades and could not immediately be dismantled overnight as it would create harmful effects.
Some do espouse radical change. These are radical libertarians and they are stupid. Ron isn't one of them.
Depends. Are you for it or against it? You would give the same answer I did. I'm sure you wouldn't wnat the government intrusion into your bedroom right?
If you don't say depends you are either an anarchist or an extreme authoritarian.
It would require governmnet intrusion, inspection, regulations, and FORCE to ensure that the chemical plant is operatiing as it should.
If the company is using the public commons it can be construed as part of social contract to accept inspections. The chemical plant is initiating force if it release harmful agents into the ground water or air.
Have you run into geolibertarians yet? I accept almost all of their principles.
Ron Paul would eliminate that oversight right along with the FDA.
On that issue he is wrong. But I also doubt he would do it immediately. Paul most likely favors third party NGOs doing these inspections. They can work in some instances. Any effort to enact a change should obviously have an impact study conducted.
However I would agree that many inspection agencies especially the FDA need to have their power at least somewhat curbed. The FDA is part of why we have healthcare troubles in this nation.
Where doews libertarian hate of government begin and end?
Depends on who you ask. This one says its a necessary evil.
It would seem a quite natural extension of libertarian ideology to believe that governmnet has no right to FORCE children nit to work or employers not to emplo children
Perhaps but most libetarians see fraud as an initiation of force in the same way a direct assault is. Fraud is considered illegitimate because it causes a party to engage in an action they would not if they knew the truth. This means that libertarian philosophy doesn't limit itself to violation of the body but also the taking advantage of one's mental state.
Children cannot consent to working in a factory because they are not mature enough to reasonably make sound decisions. This is imperfect because some mature faster than others but a demarcation must be set. We as a society have settled on 18 for the time being.
Your angst about "where does people get such ideas" is from libertarians themselves is where we get such ideas. The defense has been "I'm not that kind of libertarian", but your showpiece Ron Paul most definately is.
I have never heard on one single libertarian who advocates children having full rights to engage in any contract. Ron Paul definitely doesn't so your above statement isn't true.
Ron Paul is what is called a conservative libertarian. What that means is that although he desires change to a more libertarian sociey he does not wish to do it with broad strokes as the infrastructure of our current system has been in place for decades and could not immediately be dismantled overnight as it would create harmful effects.
Some do espouse radical change. These are radical libertarians and they are stupid. Ron isn't one of them.
We have explained the libertarian thought on that, you just refuse to admit it. Nowhere does it say that they wish to repeal all child labor laws. It is deliberately simplistic to take that and suggest that is what is meant when direct conversation with libertarians (party ones such as IH8 and libertarian thinkers such as myself) directly contradicts such a sentiment.
Only the most extreme minimalist would suggest that protecting children from victimization and removing them from an education to work instead would be a benefit to society. There are very few of those indeed.
I'll ask one more time. When has Ron Paul advocated the repeal of all child labor laws?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Nowhere in this platform is a child defined as anything and it doesn't require "evil" to assume that a child would be defined as an individual according to this ideology.
Additionally, as I stated, libertarians seem to have short memories and don't remember the abuses, even beyond child labor, that were addressed and solved by the COLLECTIVE, not individuals, and not the free market.
Do you really need them to spell out for you that this doesn't apply to five year old children? Should I go find a liberal platform that espouses peoples right to privacy and then say they didn't mention children so they must not oppose pedophilia?
Additionally, as I stated, libertarians seem to have short memories and don't remember the abuses, even beyond child labor, that were addressed and solved by the COLLECTIVE, not individuals, and not the free market.
Do you really need them to spell out for you that this doesn't apply to five year old children? Should I go find a liberal platform that espouses peoples right to privacy and then say they didn't mention children so they must not oppose pedophilia?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
YOU have spoken to the differences in libertarians when I reminded you that there are prowar libertarians. Small "l", large "L" libertarians?
Give me a break .. where in the liberatrian platform is there defense of children?
LAWS TO PROTECT VICTIMIZATION OF CHILDREN=GOOD????
Libertarians' Toy-Gun Joke Is a Flop in East Harlem
February 7, 2003, Friday
Manhattan Libertarian Party says it was trying to make light of what it calls 'silly legislation' when it handed out hundreds of water pistols at East Harlem School in response to New York City Council's proposal to ban toy guns; Councilman Charles Barron calls party racist and residents of East Harlem berate party officials; bill party is objecting to would make it misdemeanor for merchants to sell any kind of toy gun and in some cases might lead to jail time for children caught with toy gun
Libertarian stupid as hell actions was to PROTEST A LAW DESIGNED TO PROTECT CHILDREN
Ron Paul does not. He would elimnate the EPD and FDA.
In order to protect children you must have government enforcement and restrictions that Paul does not believe in .. AND .. he didn't even think it was "constitutional" for the government to be involved in helping to find missing children.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Be my guest.
Liberals SPECIFICALLY speak to the need to protect children and it was liberalism and worker activism that ended child labor .. not libertarianism.
You talk about the 5 year old .. what about the 12 year old? It does not require evil to question where libertarianism begins and ends.
However, you were the one who attempted to take a platform statement on privacy and attempt to apply it to all living beings. Shall we take a privacy statement from a liberal organization and say it applies to child murder or torture?
I answered simplistically and stated so. You are now being deliberately obtuse.
"bill party is objecting to would make it misdemeanor for merchants to sell any kind of toy gun and in some cases might lead to jail time for children caught with toy gun"
Banning squirt guns protects children? Jail time for children caught with a toy gun? Come on, even you must see how this can be a bit overreaching.
Not immediately and he advocates replacing them with different entities. I personally would disagree, unless there truly was a better and more efficient system to take their place. Of course, he advocates testing new, more independant, ways to get the same thing done. But you can ignore that because it makes it easier for you to assume "evil" intent where none exists.
You are attempting to say that Ron Paul doesn't believe in an executive branch, that he advocates no police force, that he advocates removal of all law enforcement? Rubbish, totally and unequivocally total disingenuous rubbish.
And that is the FEDERAL government that he believed shouldn't be in that because of the "all powers not enumerated are relegated to the states" thing. And I would again disagree with him.
Pretending that any candidate will perfectly reflect 100% of your beliefs is a pretense that I do not partake in myself. There have been some that come close, but there has never been a carbon copy of my thoughts running for any office.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You make the same false argument that is frought throughout libertarian ideology.
"We believe in racial equality" .. but you don't believe in the mechanisms to achieve it.
"Ron Paul hasn't advocated for the repeal of child labor laws" .. but he doesn't believe in government oversight and would eliminate the Dept. of Labor and every agency he could get his hands on.
How are child labor laws to be enforced? .. By the market?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Manhattan Libertarian Party says it was trying to make light of what it calls 'silly legislation' when it handed out hundreds of water pistols at East Harlem School in response to New York City Council's proposal to ban toy guns; Councilman Charles Barron calls party racist and residents of East Harlem berate party officials; bill party is objecting to would make it misdemeanor for merchants to sell any kind of toy gun and in some cases might lead to jail time for children caught with toy gun
Libertarian stupid as hell actions was to PROTEST A LAW DESIGNED TO PROTECT CHILDREN
Banning toy guns protects children? Granted something that looks realistic if pointed at a cop can get a kid killed. A bright red water pistol is not a threat to kids.
You equating banning water pistols to keeping a kid from working in a iron foundry is absurd.
The LP was right in their position in this case. I played with toy water pistols when I was a kid and the government telling me I couldn't play with them would seem immensely unjust.
Ron Paul does not. He would elimnate the EPD and FDA.
Not in one broad stroke though and would probably try to transfer these responsibilities to states. He mainly opposes them because they violate the constitution. The EPA probably does although I can see grounds for an FDA. We disagree on that subject. I can live with it. Do you have anyone to vote for you agree with 100%. Fortunately a President is not a monarch and does not have the sole say so.
In order to protect children you must have government enforcement and restrictions that Paul does not believe in .. AND .. he didn't even think it was "constitutional" for the government to be involved in helping to find missing children.
Paul does this on principle. Can you find something in the constitution that allows the federal government to be involved with this. You earlier said you at least support amending the constitution. Policing action for non rebellion related activities is not an enumerated power. It can easily be made one.
Libertarian stupid as hell actions was to PROTEST A LAW DESIGNED TO PROTECT CHILDREN
Banning toy guns protects children? Granted something that looks realistic if pointed at a cop can get a kid killed. A bright red water pistol is not a threat to kids.
You equating banning water pistols to keeping a kid from working in a iron foundry is absurd.
The LP was right in their position in this case. I played with toy water pistols when I was a kid and the government telling me I couldn't play with them would seem immensely unjust.
Ron Paul does not. He would elimnate the EPD and FDA.
Not in one broad stroke though and would probably try to transfer these responsibilities to states. He mainly opposes them because they violate the constitution. The EPA probably does although I can see grounds for an FDA. We disagree on that subject. I can live with it. Do you have anyone to vote for you agree with 100%. Fortunately a President is not a monarch and does not have the sole say so.
In order to protect children you must have government enforcement and restrictions that Paul does not believe in .. AND .. he didn't even think it was "constitutional" for the government to be involved in helping to find missing children.
Paul does this on principle. Can you find something in the constitution that allows the federal government to be involved with this. You earlier said you at least support amending the constitution. Policing action for non rebellion related activities is not an enumerated power. It can easily be made one.
Battleborne
Terminator
At the current time the line of demarcation was chosen to be 18. This was already brought up before by IH8, but you clearly don't actually read posts before you assume a position on how "evil" we must be for thinking libertarian thoughts.
In a case where the Labor Department disappeared it would be the States that would enforce their laws. You seem to have difficulty thinking that there may be more than one level of government or actually understanding such a demarcation.
However, you once again conveniently ignore what has been brought up numerous times in the thread, that Ron Paul does not advocate an immediate removal of any agency at all, and believes that they should be replaced either by state laws or by other more independant and efficient means rather than simply making them disappear.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Be my guest.
Liberals SPECIFICALLY speak to the need to protect children and it was liberalism and worker activism that ended child labor .. not libertarianism.
You talk about the 5 year old .. what about the 12 year old? It does not require evil to question where libertarianism begins and ends.
I visited www.dnc.org. Clicked on agenda and then clicked on civil liberties and justice.
They did not mention protection of children anywhere. They did however mention civil unions without pointing out that they didn't want 12 year olds to get civil unions. By your logic I should assume they support civil unions for everyone 1 and up.
But of course that would be dumb so I won't engage in such nonsense.
"We believe in racial equality" .. but you don't believe in the mechanisms to achieve it.
Many can say that equality before the law is racial equality. You may not and that more proactive measures be taken to achieve this. But what is racial equality and what is a legitimate and illegitimate means to create it. We could create a communist system of governance and have everyone earn the same salary and have the same percentage share of the GDP. That could conceivably achive racial equality since there would be no income gap but is that a resaonable measure to take.
The debate about that lies in what is a reasonable measure to take and to what level we would force individuals to be agents of a policy to make that a reality.
White people themselves are not equal amongst one another. It is a pipe dream to seek racial equality. A better goal is to eliminate racial injustice.
How are child labor laws to be enforced? .. By the market?
No by the states simple. You seem to think the federal government needs to perform every necessary tasks. States and local government already do the majority.
Liberals SPECIFICALLY speak to the need to protect children and it was liberalism and worker activism that ended child labor .. not libertarianism.
You talk about the 5 year old .. what about the 12 year old? It does not require evil to question where libertarianism begins and ends.
I visited www.dnc.org. Clicked on agenda and then clicked on civil liberties and justice.
They did not mention protection of children anywhere. They did however mention civil unions without pointing out that they didn't want 12 year olds to get civil unions. By your logic I should assume they support civil unions for everyone 1 and up.
But of course that would be dumb so I won't engage in such nonsense.
"We believe in racial equality" .. but you don't believe in the mechanisms to achieve it.
Many can say that equality before the law is racial equality. You may not and that more proactive measures be taken to achieve this. But what is racial equality and what is a legitimate and illegitimate means to create it. We could create a communist system of governance and have everyone earn the same salary and have the same percentage share of the GDP. That could conceivably achive racial equality since there would be no income gap but is that a resaonable measure to take.
The debate about that lies in what is a reasonable measure to take and to what level we would force individuals to be agents of a policy to make that a reality.
White people themselves are not equal amongst one another. It is a pipe dream to seek racial equality. A better goal is to eliminate racial injustice.
How are child labor laws to be enforced? .. By the market?
No by the states simple. You seem to think the federal government needs to perform every necessary tasks. States and local government already do the majority.