Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine
To be fair, it's not. Obama upholds federal rule over that of states (or tries to) as dictated by the Constitution. That is to say that he does not want a gay or pregnant kid in Bumfuck, Wherever to be beholden to the laws of that particular bumfuck town. I mean try to have an abortion in a major city like Salt Lake City under Paul and see what happens. A non-libertarian administration would at least have a chance of allowing it. Paul would say "go ahead and prohibit it, it's your right as a state/local government." Bring that down to the city or county level and it's even worse. The ACLU and those like them would have zero power.
Again, not as long as the ass-backwards local governments have more power than the US Constitution which is upheld by the federal gov't when they feel like upholding it. Paul's Fed would give up all rights of all people to the trust of their local governments. And if you know America then you know how dangerous small town government can be.
|
Exactly. All of this is what drives me nuts about libertarians. They talk big about personal freedom, something which I'd be inclined to agree with them on, except in practice it's not what they stand for at all. Taking power away from the federal government and handing it to local governments (and corporations) doesn't do a blessed thing for individual liberties. In fact, as this country's past and present civil rights struggles clearly demonstrate, it's often detrimental to them.