Paul : 4 months : +11% - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

wistahpatsfan · 07-14-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy

"Freedom" is a two sided coin. True freedom has to include the freedom to fail and the freedom to be a racist bigot.

To your example: the racist bigot business owner's tax dollars are worth the same as yours or mine, so I don't see how he or she could be denied access to those public services. Of course, you're citing pretty much exclusively non-federal government services which wouldn't apply to a repeal of the CRA.

Lack of federal government power doesn't mean no government power at all, it just means the option to exercise that power (or not) goes to the state and local governments. This concept is clearly cited in the 10th amendment to the Constitution, which is all Paul is trying to accomplish: getting the federal government back to what it Constitutionally may do and leaving the rest of the decision making to the states and the people.

If a state wants to pass its own version of the CRA, they may. The same goes to county and city governments.

If proposed today, do you think the CRA would pass the Ammendment process? Would you be OK if it did pass?

tehmackdaddy · 07-14-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

I was referring to towns and even states who may decide to deny those services to anyone who descriminates based on race, gender and whatever. I mean, don't states end up with that right within your theoretical CRA-free government?

Why would the state deny services to a taxpayer who violates a federal law? That's a federal matter, not state. What I'm saying is that the states, or counties, or local governments could enact legislation similar to the CRA if they so choose. It shouldn't be a federal matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

As I've stated before, I agree with many of the point Paul makes. I'm just not ignorant enough to believe-even philosophically- that you have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Any rigid set of principles is doomed to run into situations which naturally contradict the whole philosophy like the one hard-core Libertarians propose. What about the elimination of political borders? Many supporters of Paul oppose that one. Why? Because of the Mexicans and the laws on the books that aren't being enforced, right? Well, where in the constitution are there any immigratioon laws? The natural state of a truly free, libertarian society forbids governmental control of the free flow of goods and people by use of federal controls.

I'm a country club libertarian (a phrase I coined). I think the U.S. should be like a country club: all the great things to be enjoyed, but with strict rules on who can access.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

It's just foolish to adhere to rigid political principles in a world that changes faster by the day.

Just because the world changes doesn't mean principles have to. Are murder, theft, and Rex Ryan bad? Always! Principles such as individual liberty and rights to life, liberty, and property don't ever need to change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Oh wait...I get it!...this is all about abortion, right?

tehmackdaddy · 07-14-2011, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

If proposed today, do you think the CRA would pass the Ammendment process? Would you be OK if it did pass?

I disagree with it politically, but that's how the system is set up and how the power of the federal government is supposed to be expanded.

wistahpatsfan · 07-14-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy

Just because the world changes doesn't mean principles have to. Are murder, theft, and Rex Ryan bad? Always! Principles such as individual liberty and rights to life, liberty, and property don't ever need to change.

What if that property was a human being?

wistahpatsfan · 07-14-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy

I disagree with it politically, but that's how the system is set up and how the power of the federal government is supposed to be expanded.

Why?........do you disagree that is...

tehmackdaddy · 07-14-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

What if that property was a human being?

I don't see how 1) the right to life, liberty, and property and 2) slavery can co-exist. "Owning" a slave would be denying that slave those rights.

wistahpatsfan · 07-14-2011, 03:58 PM

Did or does anyone who disagrees with the CRA also disagree as much and vehemently with the War Powers Act? Or the Telecommunications Act?

tehmackdaddy · 07-14-2011, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Why?........do you disagree that is...

Because I deem that to be an infringement on the liberty we all should enjoy, even racist asshats.

wistahpatsfan · 07-14-2011, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tehmackdaddy

I don't see how 1) the right to life, liberty, and property and 2) slavery can co-exist. "Owning" a slave would be denying that slave those rights.

But the Founders thought that was OK. It was even endorsed in the Constitution. When the Homestead Act (another shift with the times outside of the Constitutional powers outlined for the Fed Gov't) was passed, who was going to work those farms?

tehmackdaddy · 07-14-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Did or does anyone who disagrees with the CRA also disagree as much and vehemently with the War Powers Act? Or the Telecommunications Act?

I don't even think we should have a Department of Education. The Constitution clearly leaves that matter up to the states and the people.