American Presidency Campaign

~~Rubato~~ · 01-11-2012, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

the government should have zero role in trying to enforce diversity and integration. Letting those things happen on their own is the only way we'll ever achieve true harmony as a society.

If that were true the government would never have needed to enforce anything, left on its own we'd just see more minorities being forced into ghettos.

TheBig3 · 01-11-2012, 09:23 AM

Well I don't know if he wants to give it to local governments. I think its states. And since I've been harassed for my opinions prior, let me over-explain myself here.

I think giving most control to the States would deny people freedoms and right.

I don't think you can deny that, but I'd ask you - is there an advantage to that in the long run? Heres why I ask, I think the Federal Governemnt allows for people to be crazy. It allows them to say things like "I think there should be no minimum wage!" because they know it will never happen.

But what if we do let it happen. What if Ron Paul wins and all these loud-mouth conservative factory-line workers start making 3.75 an hour? Maybe I can propose this from the safety of my Lefty Massachusetts cocoon. But I think, if Freakonomics is correct, and banning abortion will jack up the crime rate, and folks are getting paid 1850's level wages, and you're allowed to sell cars that break down, doctors and lawyers don't need degrees or to pass bar exams, and semi-automatics and booze are sold at drive-thrus I think you'd see a lot of this non-sense die out rather quickly.

**Janszoon** · 01-11-2012, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Well I don't know if he wants to give it to local governments. I think its states. And since I've been harassed for my opinions prior, let me over-explain myself here.

I think giving most control to the States would deny people freedoms and right.

I don't think you can deny that, but I'd ask you - is there an advantage to that in the long run? Heres why I ask, I think the Federal Governemnt allows for people to be crazy. It allows them to say things like "I think there should be no minimum wage!" because they know it will never happen.

But what if we do let it happen. What if Ron Paul wins and all these loud-mouth conservative factory-line workers start making 3.75 an hour? Maybe I can propose this from the safety of my Lefty Massachusetts cocoon. But I think, if Freakonomics is correct, and banning abortion will jack up the crime rate, and folks are getting paid 1850's level wages, and you're allowed to sell cars that break down, doctors and lawyers don't need degrees or to pass bar exams, and semi-automatics and booze are sold at drive-thrus I think you'd see a lot of this non-sense die out rather quickly.

Big3, this is my favorite post I've ever read by you. Seriously. And I completely agree.

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 02:43 PM

Ron Paul doesn't want to ban abortion, he's against it but he believes states should decide. He doesn't think the federal government should be able to come and override state rule. For example, in California, the federal government shouldn't be able to come raid the medicinal marijuana shops because it is legal under state law - it's unconstitutional.

The opinion of the individual has more say at the state level than it does at the federal level. State laws are a more direct reflection of the individual. To take away states rights would make us a little more like a monarchy.

Romney and Santorum support an amendment to the constitution that says marriage should be strictly between a man and woman. If this were to happen then gays wouldn't stand a chance of getting married. Under Ron Paul they would at least have the chance of getting their voice heard on a smaller state level. And their voice is more likely to be heard on that level than it is on a federal level.

Ron Paul does not believe in forcing his beliefs on anyone. He personally is against gay marriage and abortion, but he is also against the federal government having any say on those matters. You won't find any other candidate taking that approach. Unlike the others, he's not supporting an amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage. He believes that individuals have rights. And for that, he demands respect.

States do not have a right to enact any law they want, even if done democratically. Their decisions are not irrevocable or immune from oversight. The use of state power is limited by the rights of the individuals within the state. If states violate the rights of those individuals, then there is just cause for intervention whether by the people or the federal government.

Yes, we need to restrict the federal government’s power. Yes, we ought to give authority to the states when we can. But no, don’t think that states can do whatever they want or are somehow an inherently better type of government than the federal layer.

**Janszoon** · 01-11-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

To take away states rights would make us a little more like a monarchy.

How so? In what way would a lack of state's right make the US have a king?

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

How so? In what way would a lack of state's right make the US have a king?

Because it takes power away from the individual. I didn't say it would make us exactly like a monarchy. I said it would make us a little more like one. Individuals have rights and state powers are a reflection of those rights. If state powers were taken away, then you would not have any states that have legalized gay marriage.

You cannot trust the federal government to always do the right thing.

I don't see how anyone could deny that the voice of the individual is going to have a little more power in a smaller state government. And no, states don't have the right to pass any law they want. So you won't find a state legalizing racial segregation or anything like that. There are individual liberties that are protected by the constitution and even if a state has power, it does not have the power to violate those liberties.

**Janszoon** · 01-11-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Because it takes power away from the individual. I didn't say it would make us exactly like a monarchy. I said it would make us a little more like one. Individuals have rights and state powers are a reflection of those rights. If state powers were taken away, then you would not have any states that have legalized gay marriage.

In what way are state rights a reflection of individual rights? State's rights arguments have historically often been used as an excuse to trample the rights of individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

You cannot trust the federal government to always do the right thing.

True. Same with your state government.

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

In what way are state rights a reflection of individual rights? State's rights arguments have historically often been used as an excuse to trample the rights of individuals.

True. Same with your state government.

That's why the fourteenth amendment came into play.

**Janszoon** · 01-11-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

That's why the fourteenth amendment came into play.

And yet many states continue to do it to this very day.

My point, incidentally, is not that I'm opposed to state's rights. I'm just much more concerned with the rights of individuals.

blastingas10 · 01-11-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

And yet many states continue to do it to this very day.

My point, incidentally, is not that I'm opposed to state's rights. I'm just much more concerned with the rights of individuals.

And the rights of the individual will always be reflected more on a state level than a federal level. If this wasn't the case then gay marriage and medicinal marijuana would not be legal in any state. Even though many people call for the legalization of marijuana and gay marriage, it hasn't affected the federal governments stance. But it has affected some state governments. Luckily we have state powers and in some cases have been able to legalize those things. But unfortunately the federal government overrides that and still raids the medicinal marijuana shops and doesn't consider gays to be legally married in any state.

01-11-2012, 09:23 AM	#82 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	Well I don't know if he wants to give it to local governments. I think its states. And since I've been harassed for my opinions prior, let me over-explain myself here. I think giving most control to the States would deny people freedoms and right. I don't think you can deny that, but I'd ask you - is there an advantage to that in the long run? Heres why I ask, I think the Federal Governemnt allows for people to be crazy. It allows them to say things like "I think there should be no minimum wage!" because they know it will never happen. But what if we do let it happen. What if Ron Paul wins and all these loud-mouth conservative factory-line workers start making 3.75 an hour? Maybe I can propose this from the safety of my Lefty Massachusetts cocoon. But I think, if Freakonomics is correct, and banning abortion will jack up the crime rate, and folks are getting paid 1850's level wages, and you're allowed to sell cars that break down, doctors and lawyers don't need degrees or to pass bar exams, and semi-automatics and booze are sold at drive-thrus I think you'd see a lot of this non-sense die out rather quickly. __________________ I've moved to a new address

01-11-2012, 02:43 PM	#84 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Ron Paul doesn't want to ban abortion, he's against it but he believes states should decide. He doesn't think the federal government should be able to come and override state rule. For example, in California, the federal government shouldn't be able to come raid the medicinal marijuana shops because it is legal under state law - it's unconstitutional. The opinion of the individual has more say at the state level than it does at the federal level. State laws are a more direct reflection of the individual. To take away states rights would make us a little more like a monarchy. Romney and Santorum support an amendment to the constitution that says marriage should be strictly between a man and woman. If this were to happen then gays wouldn't stand a chance of getting married. Under Ron Paul they would at least have the chance of getting their voice heard on a smaller state level. And their voice is more likely to be heard on that level than it is on a federal level. Ron Paul does not believe in forcing his beliefs on anyone. He personally is against gay marriage and abortion, but he is also against the federal government having any say on those matters. You won't find any other candidate taking that approach. Unlike the others, he's not supporting an amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage. He believes that individuals have rights. And for that, he demands respect. States do not have a right to enact any law they want, even if done democratically. Their decisions are not irrevocable or immune from oversight. The use of state power is limited by the rights of the individuals within the state. If states violate the rights of those individuals, then there is just cause for intervention whether by the people or the federal government. Yes, we need to restrict the federal government’s power. Yes, we ought to give authority to the states when we can. But no, don’t think that states can do whatever they want or are somehow an inherently better type of government than the federal layer. Last edited by blastingas10; 01-11-2012 at 02:58 PM.