My reservations regarding Ron Paul...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


All the arguments that apply to the federal structure apply exactly to the state level structure. "states" don't own property any more than "the US government" does so they have as much legitimacy. Love it or leave it doesn't become valid when you reach a certain sq footage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So if I let someone stay at my home, love it or leave doesn't apply to the rules I set on them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does if you own your home. Are you saying that the state governmental structure owns the states?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

So if it's fine in your own your home, how about a commune? Say 100 people pool their land and agree to make all their decisions "democratically?" Is "love it or leave it" okay in that situation? Note that I'm not making analogies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has everyone who owns land in that area explicitly signed a contract to abide by the democratic rule? If so then there would be no need for love it or leave it cos everyone would love it. Presumably you'd have a stipulation in the contract that says if you ever disagree with what the rulers say they have the right to do XY & Z to you and your property. If you sign that voluntarily you're fair game.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what about their children? Love it or leave it for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they don't own any property and any half sensible contract of this sort would have provisions for passing on your property when you die something like you agree to only give away your property to someone who is willing to sign this contract themselves. The adult owes the child sustainence (in a food and drink and a healthy kind loving environment kind of way) until it becomes an independent moral agent because it was a chosen positive obligation but after that the child isn't owed anything by the adult certainly not an inheritance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed, so when the child becomes a moral agent, he has to love it or leave it. Now, instead of 100 make it 1,000,000. Any difference? Make it 20 generations later where people don't even remember the original reasons that everyone signed this contract in the first place. Any difference?

My point here is that you're making something out to be extremely black and white when it's not. You're saying that state level government is just as bad as federal government when it's not. Decentralized government is obviously far superior to centralized government, so why attack someone trying to move us in a better direction? Sure, it's not perfect, hell, it's not even good, but if I'm owned by a master who whips me every day and I can't convince him to stop, convincing him to drop it to 6 days a week is a wonderful thing!!!

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]

Indeed, so when the child becomes a moral agent, he has to love it or leave it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he has to make a decision about whether acquiring some amount of property for free is worth signing up to a certain set of rules. This is a legitimate decision where love it or leave it in the government sense is not.
[ QUOTE ]

Now, instead of 100 make it 1,000,000. Any difference? Make it 20 generations later where people don't even remember the original reasons that everyone signed this contract in the first place. Any difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Noone ever signed a contract in the first place and non signatories cannot be held responsible for signatories even if they had.

[ QUOTE ]

My point here is that you're making something out to be extremely black and white when it's not. You're saying that state level government is just as bad as federal government when it's not. Decentralized government is obviously far superior to centralized government, so why attack someone trying to move us in a better direction? Sure, it's not perfect, hell, it's not even good, but if I'm owned by a master who whips me every day and I can't convince him to stop, convincing him to drop it to 6 days a week is a wonderful thing!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly and foremostly it never works because you are implicitly accepting the premise that whipping is a good thing. By "agreeing" to 6 whippings a week you muddy the waters so much that you can never return to our argument that whipping is evil. If whipping is evil why did you accept 6? Slavery was ended when people were convinced by passionate and dedicated people that it was an immoral act. That is how the world works people react to certainty and black and white that's why the socialists are winning that's why the religious crazies are winning because they're certain. We need to be just as certain when we present these ideas and fudging around a 2% budget cut here or a 5% tax cut there isn't going to do anything whatsoever. Ron Paul can't fight the military industrial complex. Ron Paul won't be able to stop welfare think of the riots that would happen if he tried! Meanwhile we've lost our moral high ground for nothing. For worse than nothing because it moves us back.

If you want to try and make thing a little easier for some people become and accountant and help people avoid their taxes. If you want to discuss politics and philosophy and actually try to make things better you have to be certain and committed and passionate in what you know to be true and never waiver for the easy and quick "solution" You have to shout at every opportunity THIS IS WRONG THIS IS IMMORAL until people start to believe you then you can start changing the world. You have to give up the idea of seeing freedom in 10 years, 15 years because it'll never happen and by trying for it you're just pushing it further and further away. Galileo was tortured to death for his beliefs he never got to see 1/100th of 1% of the thing made possible through his sacrifice but because of people like him we have a chance at a freedom he could never have dreamed of. By taking the easy route you are helping to condemn another generation or 2 or 10 to the slavery of illusions and corruptions.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

Firstly and foremostly it never works because you are implicitly accepting the premise that whipping is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete and total nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
By "agreeing" to 6 whippings a week

[/ QUOTE ]

More nonsense. I'm not "agreeing" to anything by fighting to make things better.

[ QUOTE ]
you muddy the waters so much that you can never return to our argument that whipping is evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument was never left.

[ QUOTE ]
If whipping is evil why did you accept 6?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't. I focused my energies on getting 1 day "whip free". In no way did I "accept" anything though. Next, I'll work on the next day.

[ QUOTE ]
That is how the world works people react to certainty and black and white that's why the socialists are winning that's why the religious crazies are winning because they're certain. We need to be just as certain when we present these ideas and fudging around a 2% budget cut here or a 5% tax cut there isn't going to do anything whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is uncertain about saying that the federal government should not interfere in something? Seems pretty damned certain to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul can't fight the military industrial complex. Ron Paul won't be able to stop welfare think of the riots that would happen if he tried!

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, but he can make things better.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile we've lost our moral high ground for nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

More nonsense. No one has in any way given up the moral high ground.

[ QUOTE ]
For worse than nothing because it moves us back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense x 123582650026502

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to try and make thing a little easier for some people become and accountant and help people avoid their taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Useless.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to discuss politics and philosophy and actually try to make things better you have to be certain and committed and passionate in what you know to be true and never waiver for the easy and quick "solution" You have to shout at every opportunity THIS IS WRONG THIS IS IMMORAL until people start to believe you then you can start changing the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done.

[ QUOTE ]
You have to give up the idea of seeing freedom in 10 years, 15 years because it'll never happen and by trying for it you're just pushing it further and further away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Done again.

[ QUOTE ]
By taking the easy route you are helping to condemn another generation or 2 or 10 to the slavery of illusions and corruptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

BS. It's not the easy route, it's the only route, and walking down that path certainly is only going to make things better. Only by giving people freedom can you show them why freedom is better.

[skeptix]

WTF happened to my thread. There's definitely a huge thread on abortion-state's rights issues already. And then we tangent into slavery?

[Max Raker]

I don't see how people can possibly be ok with the states deciding abortion. Either abortion is murder and having it legal in any state is a violation of the fetus' rights. Or it is ok and not allowing a person to have one is a violation of their rights.

Would people that are ok with abortion being decided on the state level be ok with a state deciding to outlaw condoms or something else like that? (i'm not saying that these are the same thing but I would like to hear peoples arguments)

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF happened to my thread. There's definitely a huge thread on abortion-state's rights issues already. And then we tangent into slavery?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm, your OP is all about abortion. I dunno what you expected this thread to be about other than that.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how people can possibly be ok with the states deciding abortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the federal government telling people which way to decide is worse.

[ QUOTE ]
Either abortion is murder and having it legal in any state is a violation of the fetus' rights. Or it is ok and not allowing a person to have one is a violation of their rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, which means that whichever way you choose, all the people who believe the other way are going to correctly feel oppressed. By letting the states decide, you greatly lower the amount of oppression.

[ QUOTE ]
Would people that are ok with abortion being decided on the state level be ok with a state deciding to outlaw condoms or something else like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if a state did want to, the federal government certainly shouldn't tell them not to.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
Would people that are ok with abortion being decided on the state level be ok with a state deciding to outlaw condoms or something else like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but if a state did want to, the federal government certainly shouldn't tell them not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your system sucks then. Was the federal government wrong in forcing states to end segregation?

Would your view really be, well state A should end segregation, but their is nothing anybody can do?

I guess my point is that if I felt my state is unjustly restricting my rights I can go to the federal government to fix it. Am I wrong?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would people that are ok with abortion being decided on the state level be ok with a state deciding to outlaw condoms or something else like that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but if a state did want to, the federal government certainly shouldn't tell them not to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your system sucks then. Was the federal government wrong in forcing states to end segregation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Segregation is a much more black and white issue than abortion. With abortion, each side is drawing a completely arbitrary line on where life starts. There is no wrong or stupid belief involved. Even then...

[ QUOTE ]
Would your view really be, well state A should end segregation, but their is nothing anybody can do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would your view really be to conquer foreign countries that have morals you disagree with and forcing them to change? It's no different. Then again, plenty of people would support this if it werent' so difficult to accomplish. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my point is that if I felt my state is unjustly restricting my rights I can go to the federal government to fix it. Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's something that 95%+ of people agree on, go for it. (not that I support federal involvement even in that case, but I won't oppose it too much in that situation) If it's not, then don't try to impose your beliefs on others.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
If it's not, then don't try to impose your beliefs on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think for abortion the above quote doesn't make sense. Pro choice people aren't really imposing their morals on anybody. The federal goverenement letting somebody who thinks it is ok to get an abortion get one is not really imposing their beliefs on anybody. I guess what I am trying to say is instead of letting the states decide, let the individual decide. Nobody is imposing anything on anybody.