|
|
#71
11-02-2007, 09:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Not disagreeing, but since one moral view is going to be forced in the populace either way, it's better for the states to decide which one is more suitable for them. [/ QUOTE ] Slavery is inevitable so lets try to get the beatings down to three a week. [/ QUOTE ] I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you're attacking me for supporting the AC position on this. [/ 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. 
|
|
#72
11-02-2007, 10:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Have you ever heard of Dr. Frist? [/ QUOTE ] FYP [/ QUOTE ] I have. He was the guy who said AIDS is transmitted through tears and sweat.
|
|
#73
11-03-2007, 01:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Not disagreeing, but since one moral view is going to be forced in the populace either way, it's better for the states to decide which one is more suitable for them. [/ QUOTE ] Slavery is inevitable so lets try to get the beatings down to three a week. [/ QUOTE ] I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you're attacking me for supporting the AC position on this. [/ QUOTE ] You aren't supporting the AC position. The AC position has no enforcement. You are saying to let the states decide instead of the fed. [/ QUOTE ] No, I'm saying that anyone at the federal level, like Ron Paul, should support "no enforcement". I also oppose abortion laws at the state level, but that's an entirely separate issue.
|
|
#74
11-03-2007, 01:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Not disagreeing, but since one moral view is going to be forced in the populace either way, it's better for the states to decide which one is more suitable for them. [/ QUOTE ] Slavery is inevitable so lets try to get the beatings down to three a week. [/ QUOTE ] I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you're attacking me for supporting the AC position on this. [/ 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?
|
|
#75
11-03-2007, 05:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't understand what your problem is here. Currently, we have two moral view points and one of those is being violently forced on the populace by the federal government. Paul wants to change it so that the states can decide which moral view point to force on their populace [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Not disagreeing, but since one moral view is going to be forced in the populace either way, it's better for the states to decide which one is more suitable for them. [/ QUOTE ] Slavery is inevitable so lets try to get the beatings down to three a week. [/ QUOTE ] I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why you're attacking me for supporting the AC position on this. [/ 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?
|
|
#76
11-03-2007, 07:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ 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.
|
|
#77
11-03-2007, 08:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ 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.
|
|
#78
11-03-2007, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ 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?
|
|
#79
11-03-2007, 09:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ QUOTE ]
Slavery is inevitable so lets try to get the beatings down to three a week. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think there's something wrong with trying to get the beatings down to three a week? Sounds like a good thing to me.
|
|
#80
11-03-2007, 10:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My reservations regarding Ron Paul...
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
