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

[Cypress]

Okay, then you agree that if it were up to Libertarians, ALL the best parts of the New Deal would be overturned. They'd get rid of prohibitions on child labor, the minimum wage, and federal laws protecting collective labor bargaining rights.

That was my point from the beginning. Libertarians would not support Federal prohibitions on Child Labor, or monuments or medals for Rosie Parks or George Washington.

Libertarians would not have initiated such programs. Now that they exist many of them would take time to disentrench. Repealing the federal minimum wage wouldn't be a huge concern because simply not increasing it would slowly return to free market levels.

Despite what you may think libertarians are not up all night tossing in their bed thinking of how to terminate child labor laws. And as I have said getting rid of federal child labor laws wouldn't matter much. I'm sure every state has them in place as well. It makes more sense on the state level anyway since the fed is restricted to business it has authority to regulate under interpretation of interstate commerce.

-CYPRESS: "That was my point from the beginning. Libertarians would not support Federal prohibitions on Child Labor....."

-IHG: "Libertarians would not have initiated such programs. Now that they exist many of them would take time to disentrench......"

Gosh, I don't know what we were arguing about.

I began by saying that Libertarians value "individual freedom and choice" above all else, and would not have supported child labor prohibitions: that, rather, it would be up to companies and consenting parents to enter into child labor contracts..... Or leave it up to local and state communities to decide whether or not to regulate child labor, and to what extent, if any - rather than having a complete national prohibition on it.

So, I was right on that point. We agree.

 

[IHateGovernment]

I would ask the same of any political party, organization, or person who advocated that government was an intrusion. Democrats do not believe that, libertarians do.

The democratic party most certainly does consider the government an intrusion in certain cases especially those dealing with privacy.

What I'm saying is that words and thoughts can not remedy hundreds of years of oppression. Commitment and action are required. Why you, or any libertarian would have a problem with the necessary action required to remedy the horror is beyond me. You can't say, as Paul does, that you're for equaity but against the responible actions to ensure it.

This is all vague talk. You are assuming I have position that I may or may not have. Let's get specific.

Perhaps you can explain how one can make such statements and be against the Civil Rights Act at the same time. No matter how you cut it, that makes no sense.

Are you talking about Ron Paul. Are you aware Ron Paul did not hold office in 1964.

It's simple. If the state can't, won't protect its children, the fedreal government must.

That is a violation of the democratic process of a state and a violation of their sovereignty by overriding what they vote for. Do you have the same standard when Oregon decided to allow assisted suicide. Do you nod with approval when someone says if Oregon won't protect the lives of the terminally ill than the federal government must?

This is all academic anyway. As I have said Mississippi most likely has child labor laws of its own. I repeat it would need them to cover small business the fed can't regulate.

All mechanisms of change is force. Even the non-violent actions of Ghandi and Dr. King.

If you believe that than we have an irreconcilable difference in opinion. The actions of Dr. King and Ghandhi are by no means the projection of force but are the exercise of their own rights over their own body and ability to associate freely. That is most certainly not force. If you equate Dr. Kings marching in Selma, the sitins, and the passive resistance as force to be lumped in the same category as police knocking down your door with guns drawn and dogs barking than we can never agree. However I hope you reexamine this idea.


Force iis what controls human nature. Laws are force. Without force, we would revert to Darwinism and the law of the strongest. All living things, partcularly animals, use force to maintain society.

No this is so wrong. Reason and thought is what controls human nature. Force is the last bastion of those without any more to talk about. Using force is the Darwinism you speak of. Those with the greatest ability to project force are the enforcers of law and the order. A just society works by using informal social controls which uses reward to guide behavior instead of punishment.

Not all animals use force either. Many animals use a system of reward and inclusion to create a cohesive pack or band. Mutual benefit is why many animals come together in a group. Think of a school of fish. A fish doesn't bit his fellow if he deviates from the school formation. The fish conforms because it is in his interest as it increases his chance for survival.

Regardless pointing at the behavior of animals is not a good jusification for any human social construct. After all we are not other animals but humans.

I must say however I appreciate your candor in admitting that the engine of your ideal state is the use of force. Many liberals will not admit this.

Individuals can never be more important than the whole, nor can the future or security be left to individuals. Every member of society should be respected, but no individual can be more important than every other member of society.

No but he is also not less important. He cannot be ground under simply because he disagrees with his fellows. This is a very dangerous idea you speak of anyway. You view things in a utitilitarian way. The most good for the whole. This is the same view that led to millions of deaths in the Great Leap forward. The concern for the group is paramount. The individual expendable. With such a viewpoint why not exterminate all those infected with HIV to save the greater number of non infected people with death?

It's not a matter of being owned and more a matter of responsibility and sacrifice.

Responsibility and the sacrifice that come from it are created by the ties we create and the contracts we enter. We are not stamped with responsibilities upon our exit from the womb.

We are Americans and have a responsibility to each other. It's why so many of our brave young men and women are being blown to hell in Iraq. It's not about agreeing with the war, it's about their commitment and responsibility to the whole of America .. for which they have paid the ultimate sacrifice.


???? Do you truly believe this? This is fallacy these men and women have not died for their country. That sounds like some feel good jingoism from the White House. They have died for war profiteering and it is a great betrayal of our fellow Americans. They had no responsibility to go to the desert to be slaugtered for others stupidity and greed.

Great conversation my brother, but my wife is staring at me wondering who the hell am I talking to that's keeping me from taking her to pick up her car.

Yes indeed. I am glad you have come to the site. The way you talk makes it seem as if you are my diametrical opposite but without drawing my ire. I'm sure many lively conversations will be coming.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Federal level Cypress Federal. Thats an important difference. Libertarians would oppose it because we are die hards about sticking to the rule of law and since the constititution doesn't empower the fed to outlaw it it would fall to the states.

That's it. I tell you if we always sticked to the law. George W wouldn't be trying all his acts he is now. But the seeds have been sown for decades he is just 'improving' on the model.

I'm sure to you such committment to the strict law of the constitution seems anachronistic or even asinine.

I'll be candid federal child labor laws don't bother me one single bit. I don't care. However if we didn't pass them and let the states do that in its entirely it would be no big deal.

However everytime we ignore the constitution we tell the future it is ok to do it then too. I lay a fair portion of the blame for the tyrannical policies of George Bush at the feet of every single judge, president and lawmaker who decided it was convenient to ignore the constitution.

If we held strong and never waverd and simply amended when the need arose we wouldn't have the problems we do now I assure you of that.

 

[Cancel7]

I would ask the same of any political party, organization, or person who advocated that government was an intrusion. Democrats do not believe that, libertarians do.

Same standard



What I'm saying is that words and thoughts can not remedy hundreds of years of oppression. Commitment and action are required. Why you, or any libertarian would have a problem with the necessary action required to remedy the horror is beyond me. You can't say, as Paul does, that you're for equaity but against the responible actions to ensure it.

Perhaps you can explain how one can make such statements and be against the Civil Rights Act at the same time. No matter how you cut it, that makes no sense.



It's simple. If the state can't, won't protect its children, the fedreal government must.



All mechanisms of change is force. Even the non-violent actions of Ghandi and Dr. King. Their actions forced the status quo to adapt, forced businesses to open to all, forced the gobernmnet to take action, forced the racists to the back of the bus, forced foreign governments to give India hte right to self-governance.

Force iis what controls human nature. Laws are force. Without force, we would revert to Darwinism and the law of the strongest. All living things, partcularly animals, use force to maintain society.

Force is a sign of evolution. The further you go back into human history, less force equates to more barbaric. Force is not necessarily evil or counterproductive to a better human society. Our environment, our planet is changing. Force will be required to do something about it and the critical something cannot be left to individuals to decide.



Individuals can never be more important than the whole, nor can the future or security be left to individuals. Every member of society should be respected, but no individual can be more important than every other member of society.

It's not a matter of being owned and more a matter of responsibility and sacrifice.



We are Americans and have a responsibility to each other. It's why so many of our brave young men and women are being blown to hell in Iraq. It's not about agreeing with the war, it's about their commitment and responsibility to the whole of America .. for which they have paid the ultimate sacrifice.



I agree with you .. but Ron Paul does not.

Great conversation my brother, but my wife is staring at me wondering who the hell am I talking to that's keeping me from taking her to pick up her car.

Great posts on this thread bac. An interesting debate. I come down on your side of it, but it's interesting to watch people debate the deep philosophical differences between the two.

 

[Cypress]

Federal level Cypress Federal. Thats an important difference. Libertarians would oppose it because we are die hards about sticking to the rule of law and since the constititution doesn't empower the fed to outlaw it it would fall to the states.

That's it. I tell you if we always sticked to the law. George W wouldn't be trying all his acts he is now. But the seeds have been sown for decades he is just 'improving' on the model.

I'm sure to you such committment to the strict law of the constitution seems anachronistic or even asinine.

I'll be candid federal child labor laws don't bother me one single bit. I don't care. However if we didn't pass them and let the states do that in its entirely it would be no big deal.

However everytime we ignore the constitution we tell the future it is ok to do it then too. I lay a fair portion of the blame for the tyrannical policies of George Bush at the feet of every single judge, president and lawmaker who decided it was convenient to ignore the constitution.

If we held strong and never waverd and simply amended when the need arose we wouldn't have the problems we do now I assure you of that.

Not only does the Federal Government have the authority to prohibit Child labor, under it's interstate commerce powers, niether are the State's powers usurped.

You need to understand this. All the federal government does is set a minimum standard - the base floor - on laws and regulation pertaining to it's constitutional authorities. The states are free to make their own labor laws, as long as they are functionally equivalent (or, stricter) than the national minimum standard.

Leaving child labor up to the states is ridiculous. You know full well, that while Vermont may have prohibted child labor on it's own in the 1930s, Mississippi wouldn't have.

 

[Cancel7]

Not only does the Federal Government have the authority to prohibit Child labor, under it's interstate commerce powers, niether are the State's powers usurped.

You need to understand this. All the federal government does is set a minimum standard - the base floor - on laws and regulation pertaining to it's constitutional authorities. The states are free to make their own labor laws, as long as they are functionally equivalent (or, stricter) than the national minimum standard.

Leaving child labor up to the states is ridiculous. You know full well, that while Vermont may have prohibted child labor on it's own in the 1930s, Mississippi wouldn't have.

Yeah, that's how I see it. You know, up until 1965, in the supposedly enlightened state of Connecticut, state laws outlawed birth control (even for married women). The supreme court overturned this in Griswold vs Connecticut.

It is the federal government we have had to turn to in order to gain our freedoms, whether, the laborer, the woman, the minority. If you take freedom from my female bretheren in one part of the country, then I cannot call myself free.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Not only does the Federal Government have the authority to prohibit Child labor, under it's interstate commerce powers, niether are the State's powers usurped.

Ok Cypress I create a hot dog restaurant that sells hot dogs I make in the back. I employ 10 12 year olds to take orders and cook hot dogs. How is this interstate commerce.

We've had this discussion before. The way you describe interstate commerce renders it to mean simply commerce and intrastate commerce mean nothing.

It's a huge stretch Cypress.

You need to understand this. All the federal government does is set a minimum standard - the base floor - on laws and regulation pertaining to it's constitutional authorities. The states are free to make their own labor laws, as long as they are functionally equivalent (or, stricter) than the national minimum standard.

I understand the law as it currently exists. It is not in accordance with the constitution. The constitution would give the fed the authority to regulate interstate commerce if that merely meant all commerce.

Leaving child labor up to the states is ridiculous. You know full well, that while Vermont may have prohibted child labor on it's own in the 1930s, Mississippi wouldn't have.

Then they have work to do. Again I will point to Oregon being the only state to allow assisted suicide should the fed go in and impose their will or should they hold out hope Oregonians 'will come to their senses'. It goes both ways Cypress. I don't want the fed to interfere when a state does something more progressive than the rest of the country so I have to accept they may do something less advanced. We can always leave a state if we don't like polices but if standards are universal we have to leave our own nation if we don't like them. I like that states do things differently it makes our nation more free not less.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Yeah, that's how I see it. You know, up until 1965, in the supposedly enlightened state of Connecticut, state laws outlawed birth control (even for married women). The supreme court overturned this in Griswold vs Connecticut.

It is the federal government we have had to turn to in order to gain our freedoms, whether, the laborer, the woman, the minority. If you take freedom from my female bretheren in one part of the country, then I cannot call myself free.

Thats different thats the constitution overriding state law which is done via the 14th amendment. Thats not the same as advocating that the COTUS override state legislatures. And like I said earlier it goes both ways. I don't like the fed butting in when a state wants to give more people freedom.

The revered Bill Clinton certainly did that when California wanted to allow medical marijuana. They should butt out then and they should butt out in general.

Obviously this doesn't mean a state can pass laws violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens.

 

[IHateGovernment]

I like BAC and he's a worthy opponent and I understand you guys rooting for him over me. But frankly don't you think some of his points are disturbing like the actions of Ghandhi and MLK are force and that force is the primary operating mode of human behavior or that individuals should subjugate their will to the demands of society.

I don't say this lightly but some of his ideas seem red bookish if you know what I mean.

 

[IHateGovernment]

Frankly I think prohibiting medical marijuana in unconstitutional and I fail to see how the standard of Griswold v. Conneticut doesn't apply to medical marijuana or even its recreation use.

 

[Cypress]

Not only does the Federal Government have the authority to prohibit Child labor, under it's interstate commerce powers, niether are the State's powers usurped.

Ok Cypress I create a hot dog restaurant that sells hot dogs I make in the back. I employ 10 12 year olds to take orders and cook hot dogs. How is this interstate commerce.

Cypress: It's not. Or, at least it depends. Federal labor law has very specific criteria and definations for what businesses are engaged in interstate commerce. They're not stupid IHG. Hot dog stands are a local and state issue. Not an interstate commerce issue.

We've had this discussion before. The way you describe interstate commerce renders it to mean simply commerce and intrastate commerce mean nothing.

It's a huge stretch Cypress.

You need to understand this. All the federal government does is set a minimum standard - the base floor - on laws and regulation pertaining to it's constitutional authorities. The states are free to make their own labor laws, as long as they are functionally equivalent (or, stricter) than the national minimum standard.

I understand the law as it currently exists. It is not in accordance with the constitution. The constitution would give the fed the authority to regulate interstate commerce if that merely meant all commerce.

Cypress: Addressed. Federal labor and commerce laws do NOT apply to all commerce

Leaving child labor up to the states is ridiculous. You know full well, that while Vermont may have prohibted child labor on it's own in the 1930s, Mississippi wouldn't have.

Then they have work to do. Again I will point to Oregon being the only state to allow assisted suicide should the fed go in and impose their will or should they hold out hope Oregonians 'will come to their senses'. It goes both ways Cypress. I don't want the fed to interfere when a state does something more progressive than the rest of the country so I have to accept they may do something less advanced. We can always leave a state if we don't like polices but if standards are universal we have to leave our own nation if we don't like them. I like that states do things differently it makes our nation more free not less.

Cypress: I don't know enough about the facts and legal precedent about assisted suicide to say anything intelligent. And as it pertains to separation of powers. I'd be blowing hot air if I did.

.

 

[Cancel7]

Yeah, that's how I see it. You know, up until 1965, in the supposedly enlightened state of Connecticut, state laws outlawed birth control (even for married women). The supreme court overturned this in Griswold vs Connecticut.

It is the federal government we have had to turn to in order to gain our freedoms, whether, the laborer, the woman, the minority. If you take freedom from my female bretheren in one part of the country, then I cannot call myself free.

Thats different thats the constitution overriding state law which is done via the 14th amendment. Thats not the same as advocating that the COTUS override state legislatures. And like I said earlier it goes both ways. I don't like the fed butting in when a state wants to give more people freedom.

The revered Bill Clinton certainly did that when California wanted to allow medical marijuana. They should butt out then and they should butt out in general.

Obviously this doesn't mean a state can pass laws violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens.

Well, Griswald was ruled on the grounds that it "violated marital privacy" which i imagine laid the groundwork for the Roe decision, and conservatives do not reconize a right to privacy in the constitution. Many call that decision "judicial activism".

There is nothing in this world that is perfect IHG. You know, "democracy is is the worst form of government accept for all the other forms". Sure, once in a while the feds will lag behind some particularly progressive state, as on medical marijuana. But by and large, they grant freedom.

It is the federal goverment who freed slaves.

It is the federal goverment who guaranteed a woman the right to vote (after she fought for it).

It is the federal government who guaranteed a black man could not be murdered and have his white murderer go free. (after they fought for it.)

It is the federal government who guaranteed blacks could excercise their right to register and vote. (after they fought and died for it, and the feds needed troops to guarntee that)

It is the federal goverment who guaranteed that black children go to the same schools as white children. (after they fought for it, and oh, the feds needed troops to enforce that one)

On the big issues of our days, they have been there. They have guaranteed freedom.

If they lag behind once in a while, the fact remains that they are usually ahead of the states, and if that has begun to slow in the past 20 years, if we cannot now look to the feds to guarantee freedom for the gays, look to the party of Reagan, look the religious right. I am far more concerned with taking back my government from those freaks. Because you let them have the feds, they will come to take your states. County by county, school board by school board, they will come and take the states. I prefer to fight them over there (DC) and not over here.

 

[Cypress]

Well, Griswald was ruled on the grounds that it "violated marital privacy" which i imagine laid the groundwork for the Roe decision, and conservatives do not reconize a right to privacy in the constitution. Many call that decision "judicial activism".

There is nothing in this world that is perfect IHG. You know, "democracy is is the worst form of government accept for all the other forms". Sure, once in a while the feds will lag behind some particularly progressive state, as on medical marijuana. But by and large, they grant freedom.

It is the federal goverment who freed slaves.

It is the federal goverment who guaranteed a woman the right to vote (after she fought for it).

It is the federal government who guaranteed a black man could not be murdered and have his white murderer go free. (after they fought for it.)

It is the federal government who guaranteed blacks could excercise their right to register and vote. (after they fought and died for it, and the feds needed troops to guarntee that)

It is the federal goverment who guaranteed that black children go to the same schools as white children. (after they fought for it, and oh, the feds needed troops to enforce that one)

On the big issues of our days, they have been there. They have guaranteed freedom.

If they lag behind once in a while, the fact remains that they are usually ahead of the states, and if that has begun to slow in the past 20 years, if we cannot now look to the feds to guarantee freedom for the gays, look to the party of Reagan, look the religious right. I am far more concerned with taking back my government from those freaks. Because you let them have the feds, they will come to take your states. County by county, school board by school board, they will come and take the states. I prefer to fight them over there (DC) and not over here.

Yep, yep.

And you know what? In spite of all the fretting about Federal Power (by Cons), the actual power and reach of the federal goverment is very limited (domestically). Outside of the military industrial complex, and retirement and health insurance for seniors and the impoverished, the federal government really doesn't do very much. That's a fact.

So, if the Federal Courts once in a while, make a ruling protecting our personal privacy, our civil rights, or our labor rights under the interstate commerce clause, I'm not going to whine and cry about it.




edit: PS- yes, I do think the feds power with respect to the military industrial complex needs to be curtailed. On the domestic front (outside of the aforementioned programs) the feds really don't do very much.

 

[blackascoal]

I would ask the same of any political party, organization, or person who advocated that government was an intrusion. Democrats do not believe that, libertarians do.

The democratic party most certainly does consider the government an intrusion in certain cases especially those dealing with privacy.

The Democratic Party does not advocate for the elimination of the Dept. of Labor, Social Security, FDA, EPA, FEMA, CIA, HUD, Dept. of Education, or other essential governmnet functions. In fact, even the right-wing and republicans don't advocate for eliminating any of them.

RON PAUL DOES.

The Libertarian platform is all about government is an intrusion. No other political party sees government as evil as does libertarians. B ut the giant hole in their philosophy, which has kept them in the "Other" category in national elections, is that they present no sound policy to replace these functions other than "charity". Charity is not a policy.

This is all vague talk. You are assuming I have position that I may or may not have. Let's get specific.

There is nothing whatsoever "vague" about it. What is vague are libertarian answers and solutions. They seem to have lots of critcism, but few answers. Ensuring opportunity to those who have been denied based on race, gender, or sexual preference requires action, mechanisms, measures, and paths, not words. Are you for or against civil rights legislation and the mechanisms, such as affirmative action, that were required to ensure opportunity?

RON PAUL IS AGAINGST ANY AND ALL OF THE ABOVE.

Perhaps you can explain how one can make such statements and be against the Civil Rights Act at the same time. No matter how you cut it, that makes no sense.

Are you talking about Ron Paul. Are you aware Ron Paul did not hold office in 1964.

Are you aware that Paul stands against the Civil Rights Act, and was the only Member of Congress to vote against House Resolution, H.Res. 676, hailing the 40th anniversary of its passage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most successful, bi-partisan, and heralded pieces of legislation in American history. Only Paul stood against it.

The Resolution passed 414-1

He said the Act did not work. Obviously he's been testing some of those hallucinogenics he wants to legalize. The Act may not have worked for him, but it worked for an oppressed people and it worked for America. It was not designed to solve all problems of race.

Don't skip over the point too quickly because it is indicative of the very thing I've been saying about libertarian ideology. It has no soul (pun intended), it has no heart, no compassion for humanity, no socio-ethical responsibility. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about an ideology that is focused inward on itself. An ideology so concerned with abstract constructs that it seems almost devoid of humanity. It's an ideology that could be designed by robots, not humans.

Couple 414-1, with 424-1, with a shit-load of vile racists statements .. and let's not go down that road again of "he didn't say them" as I have already proven that he did, .. couple that with his association AND PARTICIPATION with some of the most racist hate groups on earth .. and it takes no genius to recognize the sheer and utter ignorance of such a mind. A mind that believes it knows better than everybody, but has produced nothing but ineffectual results. He can't get any legislation passed, is not respected among his collegues, builds few to zero political alliances, and doesn't have the wisdom to recognize what is best for America.

But you want HIM to be the President?

That makes no damn sense.

How do you presume that this man has the intellect to govern this nation? How can you say that you believe in racial equality and champion this man at the same time?

If David Duke wrote an article on his belief in racial equality, would you believe it because he wrote an article, or would you judge him by his actions?

You asked to be specific, so let's be specific.

Why should any person of color or conscience support someone who didn't have the intellect to understand that America had to change course and had to act to protect its CITIZENS from internal terrorism? Do you have any idea of the pain and suffering being helped on innocent people before the Civil Rights Act was passed?

Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Louisiana

Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Mississippi

Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school. Missouri

Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent. New Mexico

All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood. Missouri

There were a thousand such laws and many had "penalties" far worse. 14 year old Emmitt Till looked at a white woman and was horribly beaten to death.

The lynching of black America continued right up to 1965 .. go here ..
www.maafa.org

What do you believe should have been done about this? Should the GOVERNMENT have used FORCE to stop the terrorism against its citizens.

Ron Paul believed nothing should have been done.

I want to address your other arguments but this one needs specific answers not the vague pretty words of Paul. I'd like you to be specific on where you stand so I don't make incorrect assumptions.

One other thing ...

All mechanisms of change is force. Even the non-violent actions of Ghandi and Dr. King.

If you believe that than we have an irreconcilable difference in opinion. The actions of Dr. King and Ghandhi are by no means the projection of force but are the exercise of their own rights over their own body and ability to associate freely. That is most certainly not force. If you equate Dr. Kings marching in Selma, the sitins, and the passive resistance as force to be lumped in the same category as police knocking down your door with guns drawn and dogs barking than we can never agree. However I hope you reexamine this idea.

I did not put Dr. King or Ghandi in the same category as racist behavior.

There are many definitions of force and it is not always physical .. nor is the "force" or "coersion" that libertarians always decry.

"Force" is compelling an object, adversary, or state of being to take a different direction.

It is moral strength, intellectual power, or vigor.

It is a capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy

A person or group capable of influential action

To produce an effort or effect against another's will.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was force, not physical force, but force indeed.

Force is the one of the catalysts for change. After enduring hundreds of years of oppression where "reason and thought" did NOTHING to alter America's dementia, change for African-American in this country did not happen until force was applied .. then "reason and thought" stepped in and determined that this was a people who were not going to take it anymore.

Don't be vague.

 

[blackascoal]

Well, Griswald was ruled on the grounds that it "violated marital privacy" which i imagine laid the groundwork for the Roe decision, and conservatives do not reconize a right to privacy in the constitution. Many call that decision "judicial activism".

There is nothing in this world that is perfect IHG. You know, "democracy is is the worst form of government accept for all the other forms". Sure, once in a while the feds will lag behind some particularly progressive state, as on medical marijuana. But by and large, they grant freedom.

It is the federal goverment who freed slaves.

It is the federal goverment who guaranteed a woman the right to vote (after she fought for it).

It is the federal government who guaranteed a black man could not be murdered and have his white murderer go free. (after they fought for it.)

It is the federal government who guaranteed blacks could excercise their right to register and vote. (after they fought and died for it, and the feds needed troops to guarntee that)

It is the federal goverment who guaranteed that black children go to the same schools as white children. (after they fought for it, and oh, the feds needed troops to enforce that one)

On the big issues of our days, they have been there. They have guaranteed freedom.

If they lag behind once in a while, the fact remains that they are usually ahead of the states, and if that has begun to slow in the past 20 years, if we cannot now look to the feds to guarantee freedom for the gays, look to the party of Reagan, look the religious right. I am far more concerned with taking back my government from those freaks. Because you let them have the feds, they will come to take your states. County by county, school board by school board, they will come and take the states. I prefer to fight them over there (DC) and not over here.

Most excellent sister

 

[Annie]

ron paul is a mistake as a national candidate, every bit as much as Michael Badnarik. They both are the reason so many Republicans will be sitting out in the fall.

 

[Cancel7]

The Democratic Party does not advocate for the elimination of the Dept. of Labor, Social Security, FDA, EPA, FEMA, CIA, HUD, Dept. of Education, or other essential governmnet functions. In fact, even the right-wing and republicans don't advocate for eliminating any of them.

RON PAUL DOES.

The Libertarian platform is all about government is an intrusion. No other political party sees government as evil as does libertarians. B ut the giant hole in their philosophy, which has kept them in the "Other" category in national elections, is that they present no sound policy to replace these functions other than "charity". Charity is not a policy.



There is nothing whatsoever "vague" about it. What is vague are libertarian answers and solutions. They seem to have lots of critcism, but few answers. Ensuring opportunity to those who have been denied based on race, gender, or sexual preference requires action, mechanisms, measures, and paths, not words. Are you for or against civil rights legislation and the mechanisms, such as affirmative action, that were required to ensure opportunity?

RON PAUL IS AGAINGST ANY AND ALL OF THE ABOVE.



Are you aware that Paul stands against the Civil Rights Act, and was the only Member of Congress to vote against House Resolution, H.Res. 676, hailing the 40th anniversary of its passage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most successful, bi-partisan, and heralded pieces of legislation in American history. Only Paul stood against it.

The Resolution passed 414-1

He said the Act did not work. Obviously he's been testing some of those hallucinogenics he wants to legalize. The Act may not have worked for him, but it worked for an oppressed people and it worked for America. It was not designed to solve all problems of race.

Don't skip over the point too quickly because it is indicative of the very thing I've been saying about libertarian ideology. It has no soul (pun intended), it has no heart, no compassion for humanity, no socio-ethical responsibility. I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about an ideology that is focused inward on itself. An ideology so concerned with abstract constructs that it seems almost devoid of humanity. It's an ideology that could be designed by robots, not humans.

Couple 414-1, with 424-1, with a shit-load of vile racists statements .. and let's not go down that road again of "he didn't say them" as I have already proven that he did, .. couple that with his association AND PARTICIPATION with some of the most racist hate groups on earth .. and it takes no genius to recognize the sheer and utter ignorance of such a mind. A mind that believes it knows better than everybody, but has produced nothing but ineffectual results. He can't get any legislation passed, is not respected among his collegues, builds few to zero political alliances, and doesn't have the wisdom to recognize what is best for America.

But you want HIM to be the President?

That makes no damn sense.

How do you presume that this man has the intellect to govern this nation? How can you say that you believe in racial equality and champion this man at the same time?

If David Duke wrote an article on his belief in racial equality, would you believe it because he wrote an article, or would you judge him by his actions?

You asked to be specific, so let's be specific.

Why should any person of color or conscience support someone who didn't have the intellect to understand that America had to change course and had to act to protect its CITIZENS from internal terrorism? Do you have any idea of the pain and suffering being helped on innocent people before the Civil Rights Act was passed?

Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Louisiana

Any person...who shall be guilty of printing, publishing or circulating printed, typewritten or written matter urging or presenting for public acceptance or general information, arguments or suggestions in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to fine or not exceeding five hundred (500.00) dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Mississippi

Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school. Missouri

Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent. New Mexico

All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood. Missouri

There were a thousand such laws and many had "penalties" far worse. 14 year old Emmitt Till looked at a white woman and was horribly beaten to death.

The lynching of black America continued right up to 1965 .. go here ..
www.maafa.org

What do you believe should have been done about this? Should the GOVERNMENT have used FORCE to stop the terrorism against its citizens.

Ron Paul believed nothing should have been done.

I want to address your other arguments but this one needs specific answers not the vague pretty words of Paul. I'd like you to be specific on where you stand.

One other thing ...



I did not put Dr. King or Ghandi in the same category as racist behavior.

There are many definitions of force and it is not always physical.

"Force" is compelling an object, adversary, or state of being to take a different direction.

It is moral strength, intellectual power, or vigor.

It is a capacity for affecting the mind or behavior; efficacy

A person or group capable of influential action

To produce an effort or effect against another's will.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was force, not physical force, but force indeed.

Force is the one of the catalysts for change. After enduring hundreds of years of oppression where "reason and thought" did NOTHING to alter America's dementia, change for African-American in this country did not happen until force was applied .. then "reason and thought" stepped in and determined that this was a people who were not going to take it anymore.

Don't be vague.

Wonderful post. IHG said before that he can understand my "rooting for you" over him. So I want to tell him, I am not rooting. These are my beliefs and you state them so beautifully. You are a great addition to this board.

I did not come by my beliefs casually, or without thought. I was a middle of the road democrat who leaned liberal. But I understood little and because I read a lot of history, thought I knew much. Until I met a man who was studying for a ph.d in black history and from him, I began to read history as written by the great black intellectuals, W.E.B. Dubois for instance. There was a time I dismissed the very idea of reperations and did not understand the black American reaction to the OJ verdict. But not only did reading the black intellectuals stun me with the poetry and beauty of their writing, but I began to understand and it has held me in good stead. For instance, from that I came to understand that you cannot know American history until you read black history written by people who are not white, and since that is true, it must also be true that you cannot understand American feminism until you read black intellectual feminists, and this turned out to be true as well. (you can think you know something about second wave feminism from reading Friedan, but she is soley about white, upper middle class women, and does not address race or class in any meaningful way whatsoever) I also became nearly obsessed with the presidency and tragedy of LBJ, and have read volumes and volumes about the civil rights movement, including the fascinating relationship between he and MLK.

The problem comes I think because Damo and IHG take it personally, as if in describing libertarian ideology, you are describing them personally. But here you make it clear that you are not. I am convinced that neither of them are racist, sexist or heartless...just misguided.

But what a great thread, really!

 

[Cypress]

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?

There's a distinction between constitutional principle and sheer idiocy.

Russ Fiengold has the correct, and constitutionally sound position on Bush's NSA wiretaping program.


Since the Federal Government has been appropriating money for medals and monuments for 200 years - never once having been successfully challenged in court for doing so - it was stupid for Ron Paul to cast the sole vote against the Rosa Parks medal, and then hide behind the constitution to explain his vote.

 

[Cypress]

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.

IHG, it appears to me that throughout this thread you and Damo have advocated dismantling all the good parts of the New Deal. Even the good parts 90% of people agree on. Like prohibitions of child labor.

I was under the impression that the thread started out with the assertion that Libertarians are for a national prohibition on child labor. Now, it appears clear that the real agenda is to dismantle the New Deal, and perhaps even Teddy Roosevelt's "Square Deal " reforms. Albeit, you craft it in terms that imply the change would be incremental. Lets forget about the temporal aspect. At it's core, the LP wants to return us to the days before FDRs New Deal and TR's Square Deal reforms.

Do you know what life was like for working americans, women, and children before the Square Deal and New Deal reforms?

I'm glad this thread evolved the way it did. Because it says everything about the LP that I knew all along: The LP was a reactionary movement formed in the 1950s, as a counter to New Deal and progressive reforms. Truman's promise of universal healthcare in 1948 must have freaked the fledgling LPs out.

One can cherry pick quotes of Paine or Jefferson, to give weight to the LP's platform. But, it's laughable really. Direct historical analogies from the founders really can't be drawn to any one modern party. But, by the standards of their day, and in the broad sweep of historical context, Paine and Jefferson were radicals. Populists, almost. Personal freedom and liberty figured prominently in their thinking - as it does in all the best progressive thinking. But, as other's have mentioned, the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" individuality of the LP is just code word. It's code to cut the social safety net, reduce taxation to as near zero as possible, and to effectively do away with any real sense of nationhood, community, or the public commons.

 

[Damocles]

ron paul is a mistake as a national candidate, every bit as much as Michael Badnarik. They both are the reason so many Republicans will be sitting out in the fall.

It isn't like he is the nominee. And I propose it will depend on whom the Ds put forward how many will stand out.