Ron Paul, a lost cause...

[Chris the Chees]

Is it not self evident?

No, your imagination if your own and I lack the ability to read your mind.

You seem to conveniently forget this counties early years.

While you forget just about every incartation of Libertarianism on a national level; I guess that pressing your hands against your ears, shaking your head and singing Old MacDonald at the top of your voice would the only way to be a libertarian and have the faintest idea about history, as I am sure you do.

But, I have no idea which county you live in, so you are going to have to tell me.

I also percieve an attempt to equate Libertarianism with fascism, do I not?

Strawman. I was refering to the economic policies of Pinochet; suggesting that I said that fascism and Libertarianism are the same thing is an invention of your imagination.

I share the Libertarian vision of seeing people free to run their own lives, as evolution intended.

Does that vision include Pinochet, Edwin Chadwick and poverty?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No, your imagination if your own and I lack the ability to read your mind.

Well, since you obviously want to be pedantic, I'll just drop that point, because I certainly don't wish to be bothered illustrating the folly of your views.

Quote by: Chris the Chees While you forget just about every incartation of Libertarianism on a national level; I guess that pressing your hands against your ears, shaking your head and singing Old MacDonald at the top of your voice would the only way to be a libertarian and have the faintest idea about history, as I am sure you do

Well, that's because I don't attempt to defend every instance where people have tried similar ideas, I just want my own country to return to it's roots of sanity, and fairness.

Quote by: Chris the Chees But, I have no idea which county you live in, so you are going to have to tell me.

Why, I live in Ohio Province, in the Corporate Republic of Comerica, just like it says in my location indicator at the left of this post.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Strawman. I was refering to the economic policies of Pinochet; suggesting that I said that fascism and Libertarianism are the same thing is an invention of your imagination.

Hmmm, in your last post, it looked like an invention of your imagination. Certainly I would have never suggested such a thing. So if we're discussing it, it's becuase you brought it up.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Does that vision include Pinochet, Edwin Chadwick and poverty?

It does not. As I have said, my interests are strictly domestic, and those that relate to my countries foreign policy.

[Chris the Chees]

I'll just drop that point, because I certainly don't wish to be bothered illustrating the folly of your views.

Or rather you can't, so you won't make the mistake of trying.

I just want my own country to return to it's roots of sanity

Would that include slavery and the slave trade? You know that planters defended their right to own slaves by claiming that the government had no right to tell them what property they could own and what they did with that property.

Why, I live in Ohio Province, in the Corporate Republic of Comerica, just like it says in my location indicator at the left of this post.

Ohio is a county? But I guess before when you said 'counties' that was a typo and poor spelling (both of which I can sympathise with through voluminous experience) and you actually wanted to say 'country'? In which case you are most certainly wrong.

So if we're discussing it, it's becuase you brought it up.

What I stated was a fact, and because you have little or no response to it, you attempted to suggest my statement formulated a direct link between one nonsensical ideology with another, which is a clearly weak position. So, in other words, this strawman is your creation.

It does not.

Well then, you should drop your libertarianism.

[GHook93]

Quote by: MplsBison Paul's "return all the power back to the states" platform was too radical to ever be taken seriously by anyone.

First off, Ron Paul could not do that because of one of the best clauses in the constitution - the Commerce Clause. However, that is not all he wants to do. He wants to shrink government (a good thing), drasitically lower taxes (an even better thing), give more power to the States to run their own affairs, AS LONG AS THEY STAY WITHIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS! The 10th amendment of the constitution specifically states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

However every state law needs can not exercise protectionism (equal protection clause), infringe on interstate commerce (interstate commerce), deny any Due Process (Due Process Clause) etc.

Local goverment's are usually better at running the will of what its inhabitants want. He is not advocating complete state authority, because that is not what the constitution states. But he believes in more State control. I agree with him on this.

The only part I disagree with him on is Environmental protection. I think that is too big a problem for the individual states to decide on its own and one State's action can effect other States or even the whole nation! Besides the commerce clause doesn't allow strictly state control over the eviro protection!

[Clarence]

he never said he wanted to give all the power back to the states. He's a constitutionalist not a confederate or whatever. I've heard this many times, though. bah, $#%& it

[MplsBison]

Quote by: GHook93 I think that is too big a problem for the individual states to decide on its own and one State's action can effect other States or even the whole nation!

Same with education, transportation, military, etc. etc. etc.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Clarence he never said he wanted to give all the power back to the states. He's a constitutionalist not a confederate or whatever. I've heard this many times, though. bah, $#%& it

Maybe not, but he wanted to give enough of the Federal governmental power away that we're just splitting hairs.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Clarence he never said he wanted to give all the power back to the states. He's a constitutionalist not a confederate or whatever. I've heard this many times, though. bah, $#%& it

Exactly, he wants to give the States the more power that was given to them by the constitution, but still limit it to the constitution.

[GHook93]

Quote by: MplsBison Same with education, transportation, military, etc. etc. etc.

Education is can be argued both as State and Federal aspect. Tough call.
Transportation (minus airplanes) is a State thing.
General military is a Federal thing, but States can have militia's and national guards.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Clarence he never said he wanted to give all the power back to the states. He's a constitutionalist not a confederate or whatever. I've heard this many times, though. bah, $#%& it

Where did he say that?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Or rather you can't, so you won't make the mistake of trying.

Aye aye aye...

Quote by: Chris the Chees Would that include slavery and the slave trade? You know that planters defended their right to own slaves by claiming that the government had no right to tell them what property they could own and what they did with that property.

Aboslutlely not, as that is not how the document reads, nor was it the authors intent.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Ohio is a county? But I guess before when you said 'counties' that was a typo and poor spelling (both of which I can sympathise with through voluminous experience) and you actually wanted to say 'country'? In which case you are most certainly wrong.

No, pay attention, Ohio is a Province ( fo the sake of ridicule, but we both know it's a State, and where that State is located ), Comerica is the country. ( I expected a little more from a Moderator, but since you obviously cannot mask your bias, or your contempt, I'll lower my expectations. )

Quote by: Chris the Chees What I stated was a fact, and because you have little or no response to it, you attempted to suggest my statement formulated a direct link between one nonsensical ideology with another, which is a clearly weak position. So, in other words, this strawman is your creation.

It's not a respect issue, it's a tangent I found to be unimportant to the discussion at hand, and again, the only reason it's being discussed is becuase you brought it up.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Well then, you should drop your libertarianism.

Hahahahaha..., ah, that's precious.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: GHook93 Education is can be argued both as State and Federal aspect. Tough call. Transportation (minus airplanes) is a State thing. General military is a Federal thing, but States can have militia's and national guards.

So what is left to return to the states?

That they do not already have?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: MplsBison So what is left to return to the states? That they do not already have?

Every type of thing you can imagine. The Feds hold the the States hostage with funding monies to coerce them into adopting stupid, counterproductive laws.


Look into New Hampshires Free State Project to get a more comprehensive view of just how many Federal Laws your State is suffocating under.

Free State Project Home [ Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime ]

[Chris the Chees]

For the descussion on slavery see: -

The Founding Fathers and Slavery

[another day]

Quote by: HelioPrime Yet what libertarians want is the ability to be able to do that. They want a nation where they can carry a gun, or open a brothel if they felt like it, or smoke cigarettes inside a public building. Pretty much a nation where you are the sole determining factor of your life, along with your trusty gun to ward off other people and the evil government.

how outlandish!
This is like me saying you "AUTHORITARIANS" want to round everybody up and shoot them for not wearing the right color tie to work. Ridiculous over exaggeration never gets you anywhere in a debate.

Here's a place for you to start, look up the definitions of "anarchy" and "libertarianism", and report back to me with the differences.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: another day how outlandish! This is like me saying you "AUTHORITARIANS" want to round everybody up and shoot them for not wearing the right color tie to work. Ridiculous over exaggeration never gets you anywhere in a debate. Here's a place for you to start, look up the definitions of "anarchy" and "libertarianism", and report back to me with the differences.

That won't be beneficial to some of his other positions, where he, like others in this forum, attempt to marginalize "libertarian" opinions by demonizing our allegedly "outdated" philosophies, and principles. ( Often while quoting bible passages ten times as old. )


That would also mean that he may have to recognize that the Constitution is a legal document, which would give it authority over God's word in legal cases, so don't look for positive feedback on that request.


Anyhow, back to Dr. Ron Paul, and his situation, as of now, it apears he'll be on the ballot. I suspect he has some of those questioned campaign funds allocated for ballot access. I sure hope so anyhow.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: another day how outlandish! This is like me saying you "AUTHORITARIANS" want to round everybody up and shoot them for not wearing the right color tie to work. Ridiculous over exaggeration never gets you anywhere in a debate. Here's a place for you to start, look up the definitions of "anarchy" and "libertarianism", and report back to me with the differences.

Oh please.

What is a libertarian but a person following some view of the exacting free society the constitution is supposed to ensure.

Even if they do not personally desire to own a firearm a libertarian with flaunt the 2nd amendment as absolute proof the government can never infringe with the right to own a gun unless the constitution itself is legally changed.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime Oh please. What is a libertarian but a person following some view of the exacting free society the constitution is supposed to ensure. Even if they do not personally desire to own a firearm a libertarian with flaunt the 2nd amendment as absolute proof the government can never infringe with the right to own a gun unless the constitution itself is legally changed.

And somehow you have issues with any of those things listed?


Why do you even want to live here amongst the Barbarians?


Move to Europe.


Oh wait, they probably don't recognize your Royalty either.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime Oh please. What is a libertarian but a person following some view of the exacting free society the constitution is supposed to ensure. Even if they do not personally desire to own a firearm a libertarian with flaunt the 2nd amendment as absolute proof the government can never infringe with the right to own a gun unless the constitution itself is legally changed.

More importantly, since we have another candid admission on your part here ( that the Constitution ensures something ), and that the candidates you vote into office take an oath to defend said document, yet do not, don't you agree we should have a case against those frauds who swear to "uphold, and defend the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign, and domestic"?

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Chris the Chees And hopefully Paul's Libertarian nonsense will sink back into the marshes of obscurity from where it came.

Libertarians, as annoyingly dogmatic and unrealistic as they are, serve an important purpose- they divide up the right-wingers. The Libertarians can't stomach the social conservatism of the Christian theocrats, which can result in fewer Republican votes. Further, they may have the potential to infiltrate and change the Republican party's theocratic bent.
This can only be a good thing. :-)

I think of Libertarians as the adolescents of politics.They idealistically and naively oppose all authority, without making any distinctions between needed intervention and totalitarian abuse of power. which is childish. However, they come in handy for challenging the totalitarians.