Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced a bill that is designed to effectively re-authorize state anti-contraception and anti-sodomy laws. He’s a master of disingenuity, so I’m sure he’d say that its born out of a desire to rein in federal overreaching rather than take away peoples’ constitutionally-protected (according to the only body that matters here) freedoms, but when the sole purpose of his bill is to restart enforcement of those laws, I don’t really see a distinction that matters.
Look into Open Society and George Soros. He is the real freedom lover - and yes, Soros is a rationalist and not a theocrat (too bad for Ron Paul fans).
Soros Open Society - pro-capitalism, pro-drugs, pro-freedom -anti Theocrat!
Yes - Soros hates Fascists like Bush/Cheney - old news now - who cares?
Isn’t it possible that he believes that (a) it should be a matter for state law rather than federal law, and that (b) each state should make contraception and sodomy legal?
It’s not just communism, it’s fascist communism!
I’m sure that’s exactly how he’d put it.
But shouldn’t such a person support an amendment so the government would be allowed to do that? The fact that the U.S. constitution allows amendments allows seems to get ignored in discussions like this.
Way to completely miss his point. It had nothing to do with bills of attainder, that was just a neutral, concrete example.
What is his point? Why can’t he simply state it?
Why is this “point” cloaked in BSer talk?
He stated it no less than three times in the simplest terms. Saying that I like better strawberry-flavored ice cream, but that the ice cream currently being served is chocolate-flavored isn’t contradicting myself.
No, rambling on about “bills of attainder” is a waste of time.
And so is rambling on about your favorite ice cream flava. I simply want to know why conservatives hate our god-damned (as Buckley would say) RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
I don’t know about “popular media;” I get most of my info on libertarianism at SDMB. Do libertarians have cogent spokespeople here? Are the Mods & Admins denying them “airtime”?
I recall three threads started by libertarians to explain their beliefs. One required that we watch a 12-hour video by Lord Friedman before he would deign to enlighten us. The other two were anti-vaccine gold nuts. One of them found the Federal Reserve “pernicious” because it targeted a non-zero inflation rate. I agreed with the other when he proudly declared that he “opposed bad government regulations but supported good ones.”
None of the libertarians have ever answered me when I asked how elections work in their ideal system. This is rather a key question, actually; once you contemplate how their ideas would work in practice you come up with something like Pinochet’s Kleptocracy (a system designed, not coincidentally, by Lord Friedman himself).
I would love to hear an explanation of how you figure this.
If you want to know what Ron Paul thinks about the Lawrence v Texas case, just ask him:
Clearly he is against BOTH sodomy laws in Texas, as well as the federal government telling Texas what laws it can and can’t have. Two separate and distinct issues.
As for Napolitano, you need to remember that first and foremost he is an entertainer, with some legal background. Most of what he says is playing to the crowd. If you want to bitch about stupid things he says, a better attack would be that he justified the anti-sodomy laws because, “they are hardly ever enforced.”
As to Scalia: he was arguing that “it is a state’s right issue,” Napolitano said. “He may not have voted for this law … but he believes the people of Texas should be able to establish their own laws, not the nine unelected justices in Washington, D.C.” (from here)
Two separate issues.
What a bizarre post.
First, libertarianism is not some mysterious ungraspable thing, and it doesn’t necessarily involve people into fringe ideas like eliminating the federal reserve and the gold standard, etc. But it does include lots of different flavors, and anyone can call themselves a libertarian if they want to. The basic idea uniting all (American) libertarians is the idea of a smaller government than we currently have–that the government’s ability to do things should be restricted more than it is now. Here’s a good place to start for some background reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Second, a person’s views on how to hold elections is really orthogonal to whether they are a libertarian or not. Stated another way, there’s no libertarian view on how to hold elections. I don’t even really understand what you are getting at there.
Big government doesn’t refer to physical size, or number of politicians. The government of Texas isn’t bigger than the government of Rhode Island.
On the other hand, the heavily restrictive government of North Korea is bigger than the less restrictive government of South Korea.
The Texas government was “big” when it restricted sodomy, while the government of Massachusetts was small when it allowed same sex marriage.
Big vs small refers to the involvement of the government. Liberals like a small government when it comes to things like what happens in the bedroom, and within a woman’s body. Conservatives like small government when it comes to things like gun ownership.
No, it was anti-constitution. As far as I can tell, the US constitution grants states the right to set their own laws, and have their own constitutions. The issue at hand was whether or not the federal government could strike down a state law, or refuses to recognize same sex marriage.
In this example, it seems liberals are angry because it was a liberal ox being gored (sodomy laws and by their extension gay rights). In the 60s we had the federal government forcing states to desegregate their schools. Also a liberal ox.
But we also have cases where the federal government blocks marijuana laws like in California, now the federal government isn’t so progressive. Or a system where the federal government dictates a minimum drinking age through highway funding.
Those in effect are all cases of the federal government infringing on state’s rights to set their own laws.
Do you see now how your premises were flawed leading to an erroneous conclusion?
What is the alternative? That the federal government can do what ever it wants when ever it wants and the constitution is just sort of a nice suggestion?
See, again you made the same mistake. The issue isn’t about “worse or better.” The federal government telling the states what to do is bad, and so is a state restricting sodomy. Two things can be bad at the same time.
Except that is in no way what people are saying. You are wrong in your assessment of how some people think. BOTH the roof and they umbrella are anti-dryness, size is of no importance here.
Please keep terms like “Paultard” in the Pit. They don’t belong in a serious discussion.
In your scenario, if we were to call a person who supports bills of attainder an attainderist, would you classify the person in your scenario as such? If there were a law passed legalizing kitten kicking, would it make me pro animal cruelty if I were to state kitten kicking is legal?
I guess it depends if we’re talking liberty for individuals or liberty for corporations, huh?
Governments make laws.
Some laws benefit rich property owners; some benefit ordinary unpropertied people.
With democratic elections, government is chosen by a majority.
“Liberty” means, to a libertarian, property rights.
The ruling majority will be, relatively “have nots”, not “haves.”
Therefore, to retain its charter a “libertarian” government will necessary tend to overturn majority opinion.
You’ll end up with a police authority subservient not to majority rule, but to the property owners.
You forgot to add IMHO. At least you got the first two lines right.
Gibberish. Say something intelligible or Take it to the Pit.
You’ve been on this message board since 2009 and didn’t know that IMHO means “In My Humble Opinion”?
What you wrote there was your opinion, which is fine if this was a thread posted in IMHO or the pit. Unless of course you were witnessing, which would make this the perfect forum for your post.