It will be Hillary in 08 - Page 4

You know what's interesting about this example is the fact that the people who were actually empowered by government and expected by the people to protect individuals from violence, force and coercion (i.e., police, sheriffs, etc.) were very often complicit (if not actively, then passively) in the violence against blacks in the south in that time. So there we have an example of people who were expecting the governing authority to protect them (as tonton and, apparently, you also believe they should do) and yet, in that case they didn't. Those people could and should have taken their defense into their own hands (perhaps with the guns that many liberals think we ought to get out of people's hands) if the state had effectively abdicated the performance of their protective duties (which clearly they did).

No one coming from a libertarian view would ever say that actual violence against another person is allowed. It isn't and it is a straw man to suggest otherwise.

No you haven't.


Wrong. Mussolini himself described fascism as a kind of merger between state and private corporations (or "corporatism") and many of the programs that FDR (and others since) proposed and enacted were exactly of this flavor.

Ultimately though it demonstrates that socialism (state control of the means of production, whether direct or indirect) ultimately requires totalitarian control of capital and people by the state (usually, of course, by the people that know what's "best" for all of the rest of us).

I'm talking about actions. Like a black man being accused of a crime. Is he going to be fairly defended in a state that hates blacks, without Federal oversight?

Well, duh. I actually put it in there explicitly. Or did you miss that.

By the way, in political structures, "The State" does refer to the Federal government. Are you saying you used that phrase wrong, and actually meant to say "The individual states"? If that's the case, then that's ecatly the point I'm making that you're ignoring. In many states, individual rights would be taken away, as in all of my examples.

Midwinter put it pretty simply.

My God this is the most insane thing I've read all day. And I've read some damn insane things. So the gay who is falsely accused and convicted of sodomy in the religious South and sent to prison for 50 years... should shoot the other guy. And maybe the jury. Jesus help us.

That's not the currently accepted definition of Fascism, regardless of what Mussolini said, and if you read more than a careful selection, you would know this.

You are going in circles so fast you don't even realize it. You are arguing the that solution for a coercive, force, violence-base entity (the state) that abuses its citizenry is, well, more state.


No, but I think you have. What Ron Paul is talking about is what happens at the federal level not the state level.


When I refer to "the state" I am referring to an organizational entity which has a monopoly on the "legal" use of force within a geographical boundary. So there is a "state" at the federal level encompassing the entire geographic area we call the "united states". There are also such entities whose geographic scope is smaller (what we commonly refer to as "states" within the boundaries of the geographic area we call the "united states").

Now, as to the political philosophy you are espousing, it moves away from the federal republican structure that the constitution (and articles of confederation before it) created. In fact, the founders were concerned about the accumulation of too much power into the hands of the federal level for reasons that, I suspect, are likely to become apparent in the next few decades. If you don't really want a federal republic, fine.


Yes, very.

100% Wrong.

Well it was when FDR and his folks were gaga over it.

You are ignoring the fact that I have pointed out that your solution for a bad, evil acting entity (the state in the example given) is an even bigger, more powerful entity with the same power.

Geez. Speaking about false imprisonment, who do you think is doing that in Guantanamo right now?!?! Who do you think is lobbying for even greater power to do it across the entire U.S.? And you want an even more powerful federal government...oh...but wait...with the "good guys" in charge! Then it will be better. Your naiveté would be amusing if it weren't so frightening.

... as reflected in situ, not as it's written in whatever revisionists textbooks or popular modern non-fiction screeds you seem to be tied and bound down too.

Also, your argument IS a straw man, simply because those trapped in the era of legalized discrimination were unable to defend themselves, it took the federal government to end legalized discrimination, not racist state governments and the racists in those states who supported discrimination to this present day.

Yet another straw man, the federal government is more than GWB's Executive Branch.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the best solution we have for protection of individual rights is a Federally representative democracy.

But what I was talking about was that the state level is not enough. And I think that goes without question with regard to civil rights and liberties. We cannot allow states like Mississippi to outlaw Muslim prayer, for instance.

That's just it! If you take away the Federal ability to use "legal" force, then the individual states DO have a monopoly. Without oversight.

Until some libertarian nutjob like RP neuters the federal level and we're left with a monopoly of power at the state level. Exactly why this would be the worst thing to happen to rights since the Civil War. Good job! You're learning!

No, it does not move away from anything. I've read and studied the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers extensively, and I believe our founders did a good job of balancing all concerns with the capacity to adapt to new situations. But especially in terms of civil rights and liberties, the Federal level should take precedence, as I believe all humans to have been created equal, and the Federal level provides a better sample of all humans' interest than a more local level does. In fact I'd take that even further and favor a global definition of rights and liberties to take precedence, which is why I fully support the ideal of the UN and international law.

And poignant.

As I said in the previous response, the bigger the representative democracy, the better it defends human interest, and the less likely that evil will be done. This idea is especially vital with regard to human and civil rights and liberties.

Unfortunately history is not on your side here. In fact, many current day (in the U.S. and other places) indicators point to some very valid reasons for concern about the consolidation of power into one, larger, all-encompassing entity. If the U.S. federal government doesn't currently scare the shit out of you, I'm not sure what will. Oh...but it will be better because the "good guys" will be in charge. That's all well and fine until it isn't.

At least if the state I live in (e.g., Illinois or Arkansas) is behaving in an evil way, I can much more easily move to state that isn't. That becomes much harder the wider the scope of the evil entity.

Simply stated, it's a fallacy to say that the a bigger, more widely encompassing, stronger entity with a monopoly in the use of force, coercion and violence over an ever larger area and more people is less prone to being bad, wrong or evil than a smaller one.

P.S. Another more subtle issue here is your appeal to "civil rights". Civil rights are rights bestowed by states/governments on those within their geographic boundaries. Implying that said state/government could say you no longer have a given civil right. Meaning that if something like Muslim prayer (using one of your examples) is considered a "civil right" then there is nothing to say that it cannot be taken away because you've vested the determination, definition, enforcement, protection and provision of this right into the state.

What you really should be appealing to is "natural rights". Natural rights are rights people are born with and have regardless of what a ruling state/government may or may not say. Locke would say that these are, simply, life, liberty and property. Everything builds upon these (including the straightforward supposition that you have no right to infringe upon these others' rights of life, liberty and property as well as the straightforward implication of a right to trade/exchange and congregate).

You've made a good point here. But keep in mind we're talking about a specific area of the law here, not all law. In the example of Guantanamo, for instance, wouldn't it be better for international law to take precedence, rather than a hypothetical situation where an individual state like Florida might have their own Guantanamo and the other 49 states couldn't do anything about the situation there?

The fact is, if you're stuck, as a victim, in a state where your rights are being oppressed according to the standards of the other states, it is much harder for you to get out of that situation than it is for someone who is not a victim. Having an order of appeal to a larger, more globally representative body is a safeguard from having such a situation.

Let me put it another way. It's clear that if international law could take jurisdiction in Guantanamo, then the situation would be better for Guantanamo detainees. If, on the other hand, Guantanamo were governed under Florida law rather than US law, then it might very likely be worse.

Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected this time around so what does it matter?

Like I've said my parents were Libertarians. I went to many meetings back in the 1970's.

Over all I think they good ideals it's just ( as others have said ) in today's one world society/economy alot of them just wouldn't work. The tendency toward isolation and only paying attention to this country is one. Like so many other things I looked into at an early age I asked a bunch of questions that
I felt they couldn't completely answer.

Yadda yadda yadda yadda.

I'm voting for Hillary.

I don't care what the rest of you have to say :P

Why, are you from Oklahoma?

If Hillary wins, it will only be with super delegates, and I (and a lot of other Obama supporters) will vote Republican to punish the Democratic party. Really, my financial interests are better served by McCain, so I win with either Obama (because I think he would be good for the country) or McCain (good for my pocketbook), but not with Hillary.