Why Isn't Libertarianism in Favor?

[Archliva]

It's particularly troubling that he wrote up legislation that sought to BAR the supreme court from hearing cases relating to abortion, contraceptives, definition of marriage and homosexuality. Ergo, he wanted the states to have the power and ban all of those things.

Ron Paul for less government? After that rhetoric of wanting to decimate the only semi-productive branch of government in the last half century?

[Fr33domland]

His public record of voting against statism?

A career politician because he tries to get stolen money back to the people he represents?

Not buying it.

No his public record of supporting stripping individual rights and giving more power to states.

Funny how not all that 17 million in earmarks that he sponsored in 2010 didn't come from his district, and he is a career politician because he has actively sough office for 20+ years.

Sad to see the rise of another brainwashed moral totalitarian supporter.

Again, here you are claiming that opposing federal jurisdiction=opposing individual rights. As if magically the federal government is not a state and is actually representative of the individual.

[Revolutopia]

No his public record of supporting stripping individual rights and giving more power to states.

Funny how not all that 17 million in earmarks that he sponsored in 2010 didn't come from his district, and he is a career politician because he has actively sough office for 20+ years.

Sad to see the rise of another brainwashed moral totalitarian supporter.

Again, here you are claiming that opposing federal jurisdiction=opposing individual rights. As if magically the federal government is not a state and is actually representative of the individual.

it is not a federal jurisdiction area, the issues he wants to grant states are individual rights issues.

READ. PEOPLE'S. GODDAMN. POSTS.

[Fr33domland]

Again, here you are claiming that opposing federal jurisdiction=opposing individual rights. As if magically the federal government is not a state and is actually representative of the individual.

it is not a federal jurisdiction area, the issues he wants to grant states are individual rights issues.

READ. PEOPLE'S. GODDAMN. POSTS.

There is no evidence to make me believe that he supports curbing the rights of the individual. And please, before you respond. No more removing power from the feds=removing individual liberty.

[Archliva]

it is not a federal jurisdiction area, the issues he wants to grant states are individual rights issues.

READ. PEOPLE'S. GODDAMN. POSTS.

There is no evidence to make me believe that he supports curbing the rights of the individual. And please, before you respond. No more removing power from the feds=removing individual liberty.

He introduced the sanctity of life act which would define life at the beginning of conception AT the federal level

[Revolutopia]

it is not a federal jurisdiction area, the issues he wants to grant states are individual rights issues.

READ. PEOPLE'S. GODDAMN. POSTS.

There is no evidence to make me believe that he supports curbing the rights of the individual. And please, before you respond. No more removing power from the feds=removing individual liberty.

He isn't removing federal power saying the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to ban sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. Those are all rights that individuals can make for themselves.

Paul(and numerous so called Libertarians) want to hand the States the right to ban those acts, i.e. they are no longer individual decisions but government decisions.

Seriously, actually get a clue about the person you are supporting.

[Fr33domland]

There is no evidence to make me believe that he supports curbing the rights of the individual. And please, before you respond. No more removing power from the feds=removing individual liberty.

He isn't removing federal power saying the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to ban sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. Those are all rights that individuals can make for themselves.

Paul(and numerous so called Libertarians) want to hand the States the right to ban those acts, i.e. they are no longer individual decisions but government decisions.

Seriously, actual get a clue about the person you are supporting.

Omg dude. What did I say after I asked for proof?(I did ask for proof also, btw)

Do not claim that removing jurisdiction from the feds is opposing individual liberty. It's a bullshit argument.

Opposing federal jurisdiction with regards to sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. is no different.

[Archliva]

He isn't removing federal power saying the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to ban sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. Those are all rights that individuals can make for themselves.

Paul(and numerous so called Libertarians) want to hand the States the right to ban those acts, i.e. they are no longer individual decisions but government decisions.

Seriously, actual get a clue about the person you are supporting.

Omg dude. What did I say after I asked for proof?(I did ask for proof also, btw)

Do not claim that removing jurisdiction from the feds is opposing individual liberty. It's a bullshit argument.

Opposing federal jurisdiction with regards to sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. is no different.

Err, so what would you call states trying to ban those things? Enhancing liberty?

Cause and effect. No federal say = states banning it = reduction in individual liberty. States are already banning things such as abortion EVEN WITH Roe v. Wade in place. Imagine if it wasn't. So no, it isn't a bullshit argument. Especially when its known that the feds (Supreme Court) are the only reason Americans have most of their social rights right now.

[Fr33domland]

Omg dude. What did I say after I asked for proof?(I did ask for proof also, btw)

Do not claim that removing jurisdiction from the feds is opposing individual liberty. It's a bullshit argument.

Opposing federal jurisdiction with regards to sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. is no different.

Err, so what would you call states trying to ban those things? Enhancing liberty?

Cause and effect. No federal say = states banning it = reduction in individual liberty. States are already banning things such as abortion EVEN WITH Roe v. Wade in place. Imagine if it wasn't. So no, it isn't a bullshit argument. Especially when its known that the feds (Supreme Court) are the only reason Americans have most of their social rights right now.

So if you oppose Mafia control of area X that means you support Triad control of area X? That's your whole argument. And it's bullshit.

[Archliva]

Err, so what would you call states trying to ban those things? Enhancing liberty?

Cause and effect. No federal say = states banning it = reduction in individual liberty. States are already banning things such as abortion EVEN WITH Roe v. Wade in place. Imagine if it wasn't. So no, it isn't a bullshit argument. Especially when its known that the feds (Supreme Court) are the only reason Americans have most of their social rights right now.

So if you oppose Mafia control of area X that means you support Triad control of area X? That's your whole argument. And it's bullshit.

Irrelevant to the point at hand since neither operate on basic rule of law and one isn't a sub-ordinate of the other.

Guess which level of government has provided the general population with the most rights and liberties?

Federal government or state governments?

I would love to hear your answer.

[Fr33domland]

So if you oppose Mafia control of area X that means you support Triad control of area X? That's your whole argument. And it's bullshit.

Irrelevant to the point at hand since neither operate on basic rule of law and one isn't a sub-ordinate of the other.

Guess which level of government has provided the general population with the most rights and liberties?

Federal government or state governments?

I would love to hear your answer.

What's the difference between the mafia and the state? Anyone?

[Revolutopia]

He isn't removing federal power saying the Federal Government doesn't have the authority to ban sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. Those are all rights that individuals can make for themselves.

Paul(and numerous so called Libertarians) want to hand the States the right to ban those acts, i.e. they are no longer individual decisions but government decisions.

Seriously, actual get a clue about the person you are supporting.

Omg dude. What did I say after I asked for proof?(I did ask for proof also, btw)

Do not claim that removing jurisdiction from the feds is opposing individual liberty. It's a bullshit argument.

Opposing federal jurisdiction with regards to sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. is no different.

We have already provided links to his proposed legislation, so that is the proof.

There is no federal jurisdiction to sodomy, abortion, flag burning.

THEY. ARE. CURRENTLY. INDIVIDUAL. DECISIONS.

Paul wants them to be State Decisions.

Reading is fun, you should try it some time.

[Archliva]

Irrelevant to the point at hand since neither operate on basic rule of law and one isn't a sub-ordinate of the other.

Guess which level of government has provided the general population with the most rights and liberties?

Federal government or state governments?

I would love to hear your answer.

What's the difference between the mafia and the state? Anyone?

Beating around the bush?

Not answering the question?

[Revolutopia]

Irrelevant to the point at hand since neither operate on basic rule of law and one isn't a sub-ordinate of the other.

Guess which level of government has provided the general population with the most rights and liberties?

Federal government or state governments?

I would love to hear your answer.

What's the difference between the mafia and the state? Anyone?

I don't know, why does Paul and many Libertarians support the power of the mafia to suppress individuals>

[Wikkiwallana]

Listen to me

Right now the Federal Government along with State Governments cannot ban abortion, sodomy, flag burning, etc. Therefore, the ability to have an abortion, perform sodomy, or burn a flag is all held solely by the individual's decision process. No where am I talking about Federal power, I understand Paul supporters have to be self deluded to think their candidate can win, but you don't need to lie about the opposition.

Ron Paul wants to grant State Governments the right to ban abortion(through he supports this federal also), sodomy, flag burning, etc thus meaning no longer is the sole individual making a decision whether they want to perform said acts, but instead now (State) Governments also have a say.

Who says they can't? Who has the authority to change that at any given time for any reason?

Stop claiming that ron paul supports the state government violating your rights. He doesn't. He opposes the federal government violating your rights. Construe it any way you want to, that simple fact remains.

I already posted the very bill that would allow state governments to strip these rights, including a link to its full text on the official government database site. At this point you are engaging in willful ignorance, if not outright denial.

[Trotskylvania]

Irrelevant to the point at hand since neither operate on basic rule of law and one isn't a sub-ordinate of the other.

Guess which level of government has provided the general population with the most rights and liberties?

Federal government or state governments?

I would love to hear your answer.

What's the difference between the mafia and the state? Anyone?

A mafia protection racket is a vulgar type of rent-seeking capitalism. States are almost always restrained by a reciprocal relationship with its tax payers, who typically demand that the government represent the people, and prevent it from being used as a tool for rent-seeking.

In otherwords, just about everything.

[Fr33domland]

Omg dude. What did I say after I asked for proof?(I did ask for proof also, btw)

Do not claim that removing jurisdiction from the feds is opposing individual liberty. It's a bullshit argument.

Opposing federal jurisdiction with regards to sodomy, abortion, flag burning, etc. is no different.

We have already provided links to his proposed legislation, so that is the proof.

There is no federal jurisdiction to sodomy, abortion, flag burning.

THEY. ARE. CURRENTLY. INDIVIDUAL. DECISIONS.

Paul wants them to be State Decisions.

Reading is fun, you should try it some time.

Nah, he doesn't. If they are in fact individual decisions outside the jurisdiction of the feds, give me evidence that he is just bringing these things up to prohibit them.

I would bet that "let the states handle it" is response to attempted federal power grabs over it.

[Wikkiwallana]

We have already provided links to his proposed legislation, so that is the proof.

There is no federal jurisdiction to sodomy, abortion, flag burning.

THEY. ARE. CURRENTLY. INDIVIDUAL. DECISIONS.

Paul wants them to be State Decisions.

Reading is fun, you should try it some time.

Nah, he doesn't. If they are in fact individual decisions outside the jurisdiction of the feds, give me evidence that he is just bringing these things up to prohibit them.

I would bet that "let the states handle it" is response to attempted federal power grabs over it.

Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws, but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Ron Paul said:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[147]

[Revolutopia]

Nah, he doesn't. If they are in fact individual decisions outside the jurisdiction of the feds, give me evidence that he is just bringing these things up to prohibit them.

I would bet that "let the states handle it" is response to attempted federal power grabs over it.

The matter of fact is the Federal and State Governments are prohibited from banning sodomy, flag burning, and abortion by the Federal Constitution(thus outside the Federal scopes of power), while Paul wants to grant the right to make legal decisions whether to ban them or not to the States. Thus, it is no longer a individual's decision, but the states additionally have a say in it.

And I am betting "let the states handle it" is response to Paul's homophobic, Misogynist and racist views. Mine has better evidence backing it up, saying Paul does love to benefit from racist and homophobic material.

[Fr33domland]

What's the difference between the mafia and the state? Anyone?

A mafia protection racket is a vulgar type of rent-seeking capitalism. States are almost always restrained by a reciprocal relationship with its tax payers, who typically demand that the government represent the people, and prevent it from being used as a tool for rent-seeking.

In otherwords, just about everything.

So everyone hates the mafia and nobody desires their services... They just magically maintain their business...

They are the same.

[Fr33domland]

Nah, he doesn't. If they are in fact individual decisions outside the jurisdiction of the feds, give me evidence that he is just bringing these things up to prohibit them.

I would bet that "let the states handle it" is response to attempted federal power grabs over it.

The matter of fact is the Federal and State Governments are prohibited from banning sodomy, flag burning, and abortion by the Federal Constitution(thus outside the Federal scopes of power), while Paul wants to grant the right to make legal decisions whether to ban them or not to the States. Thus, it is no longer a individual's decision, but the states additionally have a say in it.

And I am betting "let the states handle it" is response to Paul's homophobic, Misogynist and racist views. Mine has better evidence backing it up, saying Paul does love to benefit from racist and homophobic material.

How many times do I have to say that removing power from the feds is not restricting individual liberty?

Yes, federal power that claims to protect individual liberty is still federal power.

[Wamitoria]

A mafia protection racket is a vulgar type of rent-seeking capitalism. States are almost always restrained by a reciprocal relationship with its tax payers, who typically demand that the government represent the people, and prevent it from being used as a tool for rent-seeking.

In otherwords, just about everything.

So everyone hates the mafia and nobody desires their services... They just magically maintain their business...

They are the same.

The only time everyone hates the state is when Libertarians circle-jerk.

[Fr33domland]

So everyone hates the mafia and nobody desires their services... They just magically maintain their business...

They are the same.

The only time everyone hates the state is when Libertarians circle-jerk.

Who said everyone hates the state?

[Wamitoria]

The matter of fact is the Federal and State Governments are prohibited from banning sodomy, flag burning, and abortion by the Federal Constitution(thus outside the Federal scopes of power), while Paul wants to grant the right to make legal decisions whether to ban them or not to the States. Thus, it is no longer a individual's decision, but the states additionally have a say in it.

And I am betting "let the states handle it" is response to Paul's homophobic, Misogynist and racist views. Mine has better evidence backing it up, saying Paul does love to benefit from racist and homophobic material.

How many times do I have to say that removing power from the feds is not restricting individual liberty?

Yes, federal power that claims to protect individual liberty is still federal power.

FUUUU-

Your ideological beliefs are goddamn Orwellian.

[Wamitoria]

The only time everyone hates the state is when Libertarians circle-jerk.

Who said everyone hates the state?

You did, when you equated them to the mafia that "everyone hates."