You and a fairly small (and shrinking) group of wingnuts think federal power is limited to things which are expressly authorized. That ship has not only sailed, it was a mirage to begin with.
George Washington signed the charter for the original Bank of the United States after being convinced that the Constitution must grant the federal government implied powers.
Or we could just do what sensible people would: assume that the power to create an air force was implied by the power to raise an army and navy.
I find it telling that he takes pains to stop short of saying the states should also decriminalize drugs.
I think you should probably re-read my posts on this page, I’m guessing you read something somebody else posted and thought I said it.
This argument is irrelevant. I’m not trying to advocate for the purpose of the constitution, but I’m saying it serves as part of the counterargument to your point. You essentially argue that beacuse Paul is unwilling to try to pass federal laws permitting prostitution, drugs, etc. then he must be against them. Or more specifically, because he’s not willing to pass a law that voids all state laws on the issue - and I don’t even know if that’s legally possible.
I’m saying that Paul believes in the federalism system laid out by the constitution, therefore he’s only willing to legislate federal matters. Therefore you can’t infer his lack of willingness to override the states on this issue as an admission that he doesn’t actually want those things to be legal.
How in the world can you get an anti-drug position from this:
“All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults”
No. Here:
That’s simply not true. There’s nothing inherently contradictory about federalism and libertarianism. For example, we pretty much all agree that murder should be illegal, right? Therefore you believe all libertarians must want a general federal law against murder. And if they don’t, if they’d rather leave it up to the states to write their own laws, they must not actually want murder to be illegal.
Again, you get “would be quite upset if Texas legalized drugs” from “All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults”
How? What’s your secret insight into believing that Ron Paul would want all states to make drugs illegal? It’s certainly not his words, which say the direct opposite, nor his actions, in which he says he’d decriminalize drugs on the only level on which he has jurisdiction.
You’re adding one and one and getting seven. Paul couches all his views on liberties in terms of how he doesn’t want the feds infringing on them. He makes a point of not defending his views in terms of public policy (except perhaps in the case of drug prohibition, based on the quote you provided).
If he was actually an advocate of libertarian policies generally, he would start from there, not from a federalist perspective. From your link:
He’s not saying, “legalizing heroin is liberty.” He’s saying, “leaving it up to the states is liberty.” That’s a purely federalist perspective, not a libertarian one informed by federalism.
The thing is that they believe that atheir ideas are so correct and the other guy’s ideas are so wrong that it is worth almost any cost to themselves and the nation to make sure their ideas are implemented. In short, they believe they have a monopoly on good ideas and if you really believe that then a lot of things become justifiable.
So it sounds like you think that they would have the exact same deficits (actually larger deficits due to lower taxes) than we currently have. I agree.
The sort of brinksmanship the Republicans have been playing at has been taking undue risk with the global econopmy at best and bad faith negotiation at worst. I don’t particularly blame them, they have been conditioned to behave this way. If Obama folds every time the Repuiblicans raise, you really can’t blame them for raising all the time if it keeps working.
Have you seen the sort of yahoos they’ve been pushing to the top of the polls in their primary? Have you seen the sort of folks they have elected to congress in 2010, the sort of people they put up for election? The the Republican party was facing a long exile in the wilderness when they realized that the reason things didn’t work out was that they weren’t quite nucking futz enough so they dialed it up a notch.
All labor can be unionized. Its not a zero summ game between unionized an non-unionized labor.
Yeah I think the tenth amendment crowd is fucking adorable. They ignore 200 years of laws and jurispurdence including stuff that was done by the founding fathers themselves and say “THATS NOT WHAT TEH FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED, HAVEN"T YOU READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT!!!” Pffft.
In case people have forgotten, we tried a weak decentralized federal government. The articles of confederation not only didn’t work, they were a disaster.
Most people don’t want to go back to the Articles of Confederation but many would like to go back to the level of “weak decentralized federal government” of say, before the New Deal. Or before the Great Society. Or at a minimum to at least not slide any further into the hole of obedience to government authority that ultimately leads to the sort of civilization typical of Imperial China. China has been so centralized for so long that one of the constellations in the night sky is the Bureaucrat and the Petitioner. No, I didn’t make that up.
Well, I used over a million because I know he’s a qualified investor. I don’t know his exact net worth and its a little awkward to just come out and ask but I imagine it’s in the high 7 figures/low 8 figures if I had to make a stab at it.
But you seem to think people in the top 1% of income will routinely have a lot of wealth/high net worth. This isn’t necessarily true. Bob, like many professionals, had a ton of debt after school. He had even more after he got loans to get his business off the ground. Then he starting racking up car payments, mortgages, had kids, saved for college funds etc. Made a couple bad investments with his new, higher income, which seems about par for the course which cost him a bundle. A large portion of his net worth is in the business he’s helped build, but its hard to value that as its a partnership. I’d hazard his net worth didn’t top a million until he was about 40 or so, but he was making a top 1% salary for a while before he got to that threshold.
What definition of professional are you using? The term professional has been expanded somewhat in recent years but most commonly it refers to doctors and lawyers, who make up approximately 16% and 8% of the top 1% of income earners in the US.
In 2009 the cutoff for the top 1% of income was approximately 350K. Surgical and legal specialists with a busy, mature practice can reach this threshold easily. Hell, the average salary for an orthopedic surgeon is around 400K.
Yes, let’s freeze the size or powers of the federal government as of 1930. Meanwhile, interstate commerce itself – which the Constitution gives the federal government express power to regulate (libertarian rhetoric that government has no business interfering in the free market or private property notwithstanding) – didn’t freeze at the size or impact of 1930. Goods and services that were local in 1930 and could be reasonably regulated at the state or local level alone are bought and sold at a national or even international level now.
People could trust the regulation of, say, bread or meat, to the municipal or county health inspector when all bread was baked locally and all meat butchered locally. The idea of a federal agricultural or food-and-drug inspector would have been bizarre in 1850. When bread is baked, or meat slaughtered and processed, in huge facilities and shipped across several states, then the idea of the USDA or FDA inspectors isn’t at all bizarre, at least to the average person who prefers to not turn suppertime into Russian Roulette. :smack:
We have a national market in labor, so leaving wage-and-hour regulations to the States alone is no longer tenable. Air and water pollution produced by factories does not stop at state lines, so the EPA regulates pollution alongside the States. There was also no need for a Federal Radio Commission (now the FCC) before there was radio, nor for the Civil Aeronautics Administration (now the FAA) before there were airplanes. :rolleyes:
The story conservatives like to tell about the “expanding” interstate commerce clause is that the jursidprudence shifted around the time of the New Deal, and to some degree that’s true (“Switch in time that saved nine” and all of that). However, in condeming the national government for “grabbing” power, they conveniently ignore that:
(1) the scope and scale of interstate commerce itself expanded enormously – usually something conservatives are (understandably) proud of.
(2) pre-Switch-in-Time jurisprudence was arguably unduly restrictive of the power of States as well as the federal government to regulate commerce. Pre-New-Deal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a State (New York, IIRC) could not adopt or enforce a law limiting the work hours of certain workers (bakers, IIRC)! No fig leaf of federalism there; a federal court decided that despite the undisputed general police power in State constitutions, a reasonable regulation of commerce by a State within state boundaries was contrary to the Federal Constitution. That’s not a federalist ruling, its a purely laissez-faire libertarian one. One can argue that the “Switch-in-Time” was an over-correction of that philosophy, but it clearly wasn’t just a pro-federal power grab.
Do only one-percenters have these problems? No. If he’s making such a high salary & still not that rich, then what about those whose risks didn’t pay off? Thanks for making Occupy’s case, and I hope you’ll support Occupy the Ballot.
Eh? His expenditures rose as his income did, which means he didn’t accumulate wealth as quickly as he could have. He freely admits wealth accumulation wasn’t much a goal for him when he was young and growing his business. What does “that rich” mean? Why assume that becoming “that rich” was a goal for him? What on earth does this have to do with the Occupy movement?
He is part of the 1%, as am I. Assuming I could even figure out what Occupy the Ballot actually wants (I can’t from their rather bare bones website), am I supposed to support an independent candidate to stop the “greed and corruption” of… myself?
For the past 50 years it’s mostly a sink for racist attitudes in the US, both national and international.
Conservatives hide their racist nature behind meaningless terms like fiscal or social conservatism, and such, but it’s all too obvious what they’re hoping for… white supremacy even when liberal or progressive social ideals have influenced the social justice system towards an egalitarian system, rather than a superiority one.
The Right Wing platform is the one supporting discrimination, inequality, abuse and exploitation for the financial benefit of the perceived elites of their imaginary society.
I think you should probably re-read my posts on this page, I’m guessing you read something somebody else posted and thought I said it.