IrishWhiskey - 2011-05-06
"Why should Republicans vote for you sir, if you will protect the rights of people to do things they don't agree with."
Fox News - We still don't get how democracy works.
While these were two answers I broadly agree with, I really don't get the hard-on Libertarians have for state's rights. I don't give a damn if the person censoring my books, banning my marriage, and forcing me to pray is from the federal or state government. Its just as authoritarian. In fact both historically and logically, concentrating that power in homogeneous states is more likely to increase government abuse of power.
|
aikimoe - 2011-05-06 But if you look at issues like gay marriage and marijuana, it's precisely the states that are being more liberal than the feds. Historically, it was the states that first started ending prohibition. And states can't censor books or force you to pray, since those are unconstitutional.
|
IrishWhiskey - 2011-05-06 I agree a state centered system would permit decentralized government in some cases, but in others it would lead to the worse abuses. I mean half of Mississippians today want to ban interracial marriage.
I agree that the 14th Amendment should curtail state abuses, but most libertarians I've met seem to disagree, including Ron Paul. He thinks states should (not just could) pass laws for teaching creationism and prayer in school, and the entire point of supporting states rights for social conservatives is specifically to get around federal rules protecting abortion rights for women, separation of church and state, and anti-discrimination laws.
|
|
|
baleen - 2011-05-06 Oh, the Federal Power vs. State Rights debate.
I'm sure this is going to be resolved in flying colors.
|
Yhanthlei - 2011-05-06 There is actually a libertarian reason to support state over federal rights. States and the federal government are each about as likely to increase or reduce rights as the other, but it is easier for outside pressure to change the policies of a state than a nation. If Mississippi or wherever want to round up the gays or turn into a slave owning aristocracy, there are 49 other states and a national army to change that. If America as a whole decides that fascism is awesome, then it would take a fairly major portion of the planet to force changes back to democracy. There is a potential problem of a majority of reactionary states preventing liberal policies by other states, but in practice separate states are more likely to band together for liberty rather than against it. Under this theory gains in liberty made by states would be more likely to stick around while regression would be corrected, while a strong national government would be more capricious.
If this all sounds slightly paranoid, why yes, yes it is.
|
FABIO - 2011-05-07 It's an escape clause whenever the federal government forces these clods into the 20th century with radical big government like The Civil Rights Act.
Plus it's a lot easier for crazies to take over a state government.
|
Cena_mark - 2011-05-06
Did my comment get deleted? That was my least augmentative post ever.
|
Jellyneck - 2011-05-06 That'll teach you to garner support, troll. Back to your cave!
|
|
baleen - 2011-05-06 "Everything Ron Paul says is right and I'm a Libertarian."
There, you don't have to worry anymore little cena.
|
Rodents of Unusual Size - 2011-05-06
I don't agree with Ron Paul on a number of issues, but he and the NM rep...wow I can't believe I agree with Republicans for once. On anything. Here you go.
|
baleen - 2011-05-06 The American Libertarian party has positions that appeal to everybody. That's why Murray Rothbard's "Libertarian" journal was called Left AND Right. He was at first trying to unite the liberal voices of both sides... Towards the end he saw that the Left had spat him out because of his positions on the Great Society and segregation among many other things, and the only people who would listen to him were paleoconservatives.
Hence his endorsement of Pat Buchanan for President, and why "Libertarianism" with a capital L is now only truly subscribed to by halfwits like cena_mark.
|
Senator_Unger - 2011-05-07
As much as I might disagree with Ron Paul, at least he's intellectually honest and consistent in his positions. He's probably the only Republican at the national level I can say that about.
|
|
pastorofmuppets - 2011-05-07 It may be logically consistent to say, as a straight white christian male, "America's fine, quit messing with it," but it's still evil.
|
|
pastorofmuppets - 2011-05-08 Not to gang up. I do like consistency. Just not Ron Paul.
|
Jeriko-1 - 2011-05-15 You shut your mouth about Starscream!
|
zerobackup - 2011-05-07
Damn, I gotta say I've never seen a Republican debate with 2 opinions in a row from 2 different people that were well reasoned, non-reactionary positions that most people with any sense would have to agree with. Fuck yeah.
|
Old_Zircon - 2011-05-07
The woman in red at 2:38 is pretty happy about marijuana.
|
Register or login To Post a Comment |