Emphasis added. Lind is right, Paul is wrong. Anyone care to dispute that?
So anything can be done and would be considered in line with “American values” as long as they do it under the guise of maintaining our democratic republic? The authors of the Constitution went through the pains of specifically enumerating powers for the new federal government in order to limit it’s power. Do you dispute this?
How does the Civil Rights Act help to maintain our democratic republic? As far as I know, Paul’s problem with the act is in Title II.
Lind isn’t 100% right, Paul isn’t 100% wrong. Government is a giant balancing act. Look at the preamble to the Constitution, and tell me what you think the founders were trying to do.
Form a more perfect Union
establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defence (sic)
promote the general Welfare
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
“A more perfect union” wouldn’t have included a crazy system where one house was elected directly, the other house was elected by state legislatures, the executive was elected by a third group, the judiciary was appointed by the executive and everyone effectively has a veto on everyone else’s authority.
Insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense wouldn’t bother with guaranteeing such protections as habeus corpus and a definition of treason.
And on and on through seven articles and 27 amendments.
People get so hung up over Issue A that they ignore the fact that the founders wanted Issue B, as well.
He sounds like the kinda guy who, as president, would reason that Congress serves no purpose and would casually order the military to disperse it.
All irrelevant. As I understand Paul’s position here – “the principle of private property and private choices”. “They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses …” – it’s not a federal-vs.-state thing, it’s government-vs.-individuals/organizations thing, and all – Patriot Act and Civil Rights Act – would be equally objectionable as state-level policy.
Wouldn’t it be more the Libertarian way to decide the military serves no purpose and casually ask Congress to defund it?
For Paul to be wrong he would have to be against this:
Would it be too much to ask for a cite where political position of Ron Paul is opposite of quoted? Where essentially Ron Paul says he is against US defending itself.
But, let’s not BS around - there’s no such cite to find. What Ron is against is war of choice and war propaganda that brought us Iraq war and soon Iran war.
Which makes Salon writer argument kinda shitty.
But, it’s a good read. Especially for a left-of-center publication that allegedly understands the difference between defensive war and war of choice (e.g. Iraq war) :o
Lind argues that american theories of government are based on the " reasoning of natural rights theorists like John Locke, for whom coercion in the service of communal self-defense is perfectly legitimate" Yet he criticizes the Patriot Act the purpose of which is communal self-defense, and praises the title 2 of the Civil Rights act which has nothing to do with communal self defense. He tries to appropriate Locke for his side but his ideas of Natural Law are in stark contrast to what it is normally understood as.
And he’d get impeached.
A more likely tactic would be to refuse to enforce any laws or regulations. But that would probably get him impeached too.
Will you please answer the question? How does title II of the Civil Rights act help to “maintain our democratic republic”?
He’s also against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
By doing justice.
Well as long as **BrainGlutton **says so.:rolleyes:
Ron Paul may get some attention (as he has off and on for many years now), but he always was and remains a fringe candidate. He’s not mainstream in the Republican party, let alone the United States.
Classical Republican politics is not synonymous with extreme libertarianism, nor is mainstream GOP politics equivalent to extreme libertarianism today.
I feel the same way about Paul that I feel about Pat Buchanon. I don’t agree with their ideas but I admire the way they’re willing to state what they believe in even when they know it runs against what the majority of Americans believe. Most politicians are only willing to go places where their focus groups tell them there’s 51% of the voters waiting for them.
That said, my admiration for their character doesn’t extend to a willingness to vote for them and let them implement their political ideas. Some ideas are unpopular for very good reasons.
Hard core libertarian beliefs inhabit the fringes of American politics. News at 11.
Yes, that’s pretty much it. American values are the values collectively held by most Americans. If the majority of Americans decided they wanted a king to rule this country, then the monarchy would be an American value. If the majority of Americans don’t want a king, then it isn’t an American value.
I guess, though I suspect Paul’s beliefs are less against the beliefs of Texas’s 14th Congressional district then they are of the country at large and Buchannans never had an actual constituent to worry about pissing off. So I don’t think either man is really taking large political risks with their views.
(and when Paul actually has to vote on something that he disagrees with his constituatns about, such as federal abortion laws, he usually finds some way to justify it.)
It’s hit or miss. The problem is, even the Southerners who fought tooth and nail against the Civil Rights act in 1964 would not be considered libertarians by any means. They were against the government telling them who they had to serve in their restaurants, but they were heavily in favor of the government saying blacks couldn’t marry whites, criminalization of homosexuality and other things that are fundamentally at odds with libertarianism.
That’s the crux of the reason why true libertarianism is a very fringe belief in America. Everyone wants less government in certain areas, but at the same time, almost everyone wants more government in other areas.
Liberals want more government in say, health care, conservatives less. But liberals want less government in marriage, conservatives want government to strictly regulate marriage along religious lines. That concept is intrinsically incompatible with libertarianism.
I think there is more overlap between self-proclaimed libertarians and the GOP, mostly because the die hard self-proclaimed libertarians tend to be narrowly focused on economics without actually considering the wider issues that libtertarianism brings up, but in reality if you adhere strongly to libertarian principles you aren’t going to fit in with either the GOP or the Democrats in this country.
Rolling eyes back at you, it is not only **BrainGlutton **who says so, you need to check history and why we got here:
Incidentally, as it happens in many places in the USA nowadays, the voting booths themselves are located in public places, but before the act a good number of those “public” places discriminated actively, meaning that Blacks and other minorities had to go to locations that were either far or not convenient for the minorities to vote. Or not even that, as a minority they could also be prevented before hand from settling in a place were some peculiar politicians would be appalled to represent “that kind” of people.
So I would tell Ron Paul stop telling us that we will get the rains of freedom when the intention is to give others the liberty to pee on us.