Au contraire. For every intervention that has actually benefited the poor benighted people of Wherever, I can name five that did exactly the opposite. More often than not, "humanitarian intervention" is a cheap excuse for other, far less altruistic, ends. In the long run, letting people sort out their own affairs saves lives and lessen hardship.
So when the government decides to stop bussiness with another state that is - arguably - commiting atrocities, even war crimes, against its own citizens, it is not the right thing to do? What do you propose people do - no humanistic intervention, no governmental intervention in bussines - just what?
I know where you are coming - sanctions hurt ordinary people way more than they hurt the ruling class. But these weren't economic sanctions. These didn't even bind independent organizations who can, right now, make bussines with Sudan if they see it fit - although at the risk of losing often quite... lucrative contracts with the US central government. It's arguably the most libertarian way a government can deal with such a thing.
Like I said, this is not my strong point. But I would like to hear other suggestions for fighting rampant overspending and a balooning public debt, taking into account that politicians will virtually never choose to lessen spending of their own volition.
That's a spending issue. In US terms, what you are looking at is fiscal conservatism, not weird gold-standard currencies. It wouldn't impact spending at all, except when fluctuations in dollar value would cause widespread economic repercussions.
Nope. For example, I support legalizing marijuana, but I don't think that the federal government should be the one that does. If individual states (or provinces here in Canada) want to do it or not do it, that's the proper channel. Again, it's a stand against federal power in areas where it should have no authority, not against this specific thing.
But that's not what the big thing about We the People is. It's against reproductive rights as protected by state, as well as the separation of church and state.
Am I missing something? At what point has he even remotely hinted at eroding this separation?
We the People -proposal! It's almost adamant of "USSC should not deal with religious questions", even though USSC is the highest institution that guards the separation of church and state!
Come on:
If made law, the Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts. The legislation would be immune to any constitutional challenge other than to the Act itself.
This. This right here. It's not about marijuana. If you think that USSC should not deal with those religious issues that are stated in the US constitution, then whatever. It would give states all rights to decide about sexual rights and religious issues, effectively ending any constitutional protection of citizens over those things. It's not about individual right, because if a state decides then to ban for example a religious way, abortion or any kind of same-sex relations, then what about individual rights - practicing them would throw you in the jail, and Fed couldn't do anything about it.
Yeah, and also this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.htmlAnd I visited both the Stormfront and FARC websites. Does that make me a racist Marxist? The whole point is moot.
Yeah, it was just another dig at Ron Paul's personal values.
Not at all. Did you read the part where he said "I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars". That's individual rights right there. If you like something, pay for it. If not, don't. At what point did government money become the only option for advancing medical science?
Then what does the "immoral" part do there? Is it political speak, or is it there just because? If you believe tax is theft, then go ahead and say it. Otherwise government has any right to use its money - not citizens' money, it government's money once it taxed to the government - just as it sees fit. Neutral way to say this would be "I strongle object to forcing Americans to subsidize government with tax dollars", especially when Ron Paul's hard-to-defend immigration policies would just result in higher taxes and are in strict contradiction with libertarian ideals, some of which are free flow of workforce and currencies and banishing unnecessary nation-states where they hamper the progress of libertarian economic system.
Except that he has time and again stated that the position of the government should be "trade with all, entangling alliances with none". He's probably the biggest proponent of free and universal trade out there. How do you manage to interpret that as being anti-free trade? The only exception being when trade agreements infringe on the sovereignty of a country, which they have no business doing in the first place.
Does free trade mean that government MUST deal with everyone they want to? See Sudan for example. Shouldn't government have every right to say no to contracts?
Which is easier: move to a different that has laws more to your liking or move to a different country? Ideally, it would be even more local than he state level, but that's not presently feasible. If conservative Austin wants to ban abortion and liberal San Francisco wants to allow it, why do you consider the right to do this a bad thing?
That's idiotic. People can not move freely as they wish and you know it - economic reasons are first, but there are other, more subtle reasons for people rather wanting to keep the government as good as they can instead of just moving around.
People are bound to where they live by countless factors, and you grossly underestimate how much it takes to move a new state - which could just put up new regulations against uncontrolled immigration, so this would leave pretty much everyone who is not middle-class or above and/or wanted workforce ****ed. It's easy to say just to "move to another country", but I seriously suggest you start to consider moving right now because the government decided to piss you in the eye. It's not good. It's not possible for everyone. "LOVE IT OR MOVE ALONG" is a stupid sentiment, and very unfair.
Also, do you believe in democracy or mob rule? A or B.
I have no idea. As far I know nothing. But come up with something to argue and I'll gladly indulge.
14th amendment has a lot of stuff which is pretty damn relevant to this discussion, such as
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
and
Prior to the adoption of this Amendment, the Bill of Rights was generally, though not universally, thought to act only as a restraint on federal governments, not those of the state, and a state's relations with its citizens and those of other states was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws and those provisions of the Constitution that limited the powers of the states.
and
After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgement by state governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgement by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
which are pretty damn relevant to the entire "states rights" discussion!
Using strawmans again? Who ever mentioned anything about violently deporting them? Find me an actual quote or something and then we'll talk. While every country has an immigration policy, most have the capacity to enforce it. The US does not. We can argue for more immigration or less immigration but not over the fact that the government has a legitimate right to control its borders.
Ron Paul:
Congressman Ron Paul: While I realize that mass deportation is unrealistic, I’m opposed to amnesty, because I believe strongly in the rule of law. I see this matter chiefly as a problem of the welfare state. The majority of illegal immigrants in this country are exceptionally hard workers, but there is a small minority receiving housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other kinds of welfare from the federal government. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of illegal immigrants, which in turn causes citizens to form vigilante groups to deal with the issue while Congress does nothing. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard; with one, however, you can’t avoid a small element of criminals and freeloaders being attracted into the country. This is why I’m in favor of securing the borders immediately. Federal entitlement programs such as Social Security are also threatened by the influx of illegal immigrants into the country. Successive administrations have supported the so-called “totalization” agreements, by which illegal immigrants would be allowed to qualify for programs like Social Security, programs that are already in dire shape and threatening financial ruin for the United States. Sending benefits abroad to immigrants who once worked here will cost the United States millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars. Anyone who hopes to receive Social Security someday should oppose amnesty and totalization proposals. The problems associated with illegal immigration cannot be solved overnight, but we cannot begin to address the issue until we take the difficult steps of securing the borders, rejecting amnesty, and reaffirming our right as a sovereign nation to control immigration without apology.
[/i]
There's his stance on the illegal immigration. There's a line about mass deportation right at the beginning (which is basically "it's practically impossible BUT blaa blaa blaa") and then there's the entire "reject amnesty" thing.
Not a candidates. This candidates. And believe me, I know how strange that sounds coming out of my e-mouth. I am just as jaded as the next guy, probably much more so, but this specific person in this specific situation has convinced me of his integrity because he has managed to maintain it despite being in politics for several decades.
Such as
They wanted the cops jailed and the murderers, arsonists, and thieves
set free. This came not from the underclass, but from middle-class
blacks and black political activists, who hold opinions not markedly
different from the Crips and the Bloods.
[...]
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
?
Oh yeah, and your integrate candidate also said that
- Kyoto sucks
- opposes abortion but would leave it to the states to decide
edit: Let's be fair here. It wasn't, perhaps, Ron Paul in 1992, it might have been someone else in his report which is obviously OK.
