The Repeal Amendment

[Crezth]

in a free market people are not enslaved and rounded up if they leave

hahaha what are you on about

 

[Cutlass]

in a free market people are not enslaved and rounded up if they leave

If no government takes any action in any way, shape, or form, is it a free market action?


If no government takes any action in any way, shape, or form, people will be rounded up and enslaved.

European governments were involved, but abducting and enslaving a human being is not a private action. Is genocide a private action too?

No government set up slavery in North America. All private parties did it. The governments later either limited or legitimized it. But they certainly did not start it. Ultimately slavery never ended until the government in question ended it.

Genocide has often been a private action. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Berzerker]

If no government takes any action in any way, shape, or form, is it a free market action?

If no government takes any action in any way, shape, or form, people will be rounded up and enslaved.

Maybe, the absence of government /= free market and the presence of government doesn't preclude a free market; but they aint taking private action when they round up people for slavery

No government set up slavery in North America. All private parties did it. The governments later either limited or legitimized it. But they certainly did not start it. Ultimately slavery never ended until the government in question ended it.

Do the Aztecs count? You should talk to some Indians (and Africans) about the Spanish crown.

Genocide has often been a private action. Why wouldn't it be?

because genocide violates the private actions of the victims?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Maybe we should thank God so many people voluntarily vote for candidates who do not eliminate the draft.

Well, we aren't using it ATM (Are they still prosecuting people for not registering?)

That said, voting to draft people is not "Voluntarily defending your country."

@Cutlass-

White supremacists are not the only people who have property rights.

We agree on this. But white supremacists do have property rights. You are proposing to take away their right to property and forcing them to let people of other races use it.

Do you even know what language you are speaking?

English

 

[Antilogic]

Do the Aztecs count? You should talk to some Indians (and Africans) about the Spanish crown.

because genocide violates the private actions of the victims?

Weren't even the Spanish operating under a colonial company-charter system? Semi-related: filibustering.

Well, we aren't using it ATM (Are they still prosecuting people for not registering?)

That said, voting to draft people is not "Voluntarily defending your country."

Didn't say it was; what I meant was the overwhelming majority of Americans don't care enough about the draft to nominate candidates for office who would permanently abolish it.

We agree on this. But white supremacists do have property rights. You are proposing to take away their right to property and forcing them to let people of other races use it.

...the fact that you wrote "other races" as opposed to just "other people" kinda sets off a red flag.

 

[Farm Boy]

No government set up slavery in North America. All private parties did it. The governments later either limited or legitimized it. But they certainly did not start it. Ultimately slavery never ended until the government in question ended it.

Genocide has often been a private action. Why wouldn't it be?

So we're going to ignore the governmental involvement in slavery through the ages as a result of warfare and regulation, neatly divide the timeline between before and after European colonization of North America even though the past set it up, then ignore government sanctions of slavery and then credit government regulation against it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Didn't say it was; what I meant was the overwhelming majority of Americans don't care enough about the draft to nominate candidates for office who would permanently abolish it.

There aren't many, and people have all kinds of whacked problems with Ron Paul

The part in parenthesis was a real question. Do they still actually prosecute anyone for not signing up for the draft?

...the fact that you wrote "other races" as opposed to just "other people" kinda sets off a red flag.

You don't ever really have to let anyone use your property. But you cannot, by law, open it up to people of one race and not other people from other races. It is unlawful to do so. As I have said about a thousand times, I would personally boycott any business that discriminated in this way. However, I see no good reason on libertarian grounds that such freedom to associate with those whom you choose (Even if the standard is as silly as "White people") should be illegal. And I can't see any reason on ANY grounds that it is somehow more pro-property to deny them that right than to allow it and allow the invisible hand of the market to mete out any punishment for bigoted decisions.

 

[Antilogic]

There aren't many, and people have all kinds of whacked problems with Ron Paul

The part in parenthesis was a real question. Do they still actually prosecute anyone for not signing up for the draft?

Yes, you do have to register for the selective service when you turn 18.

If a significant number of people seriously cared about eliminating the draft permanently, especially via constitutional amendment, wouldn't more politicians run on that platform? Marketplace of ideas and all that garbage?

You don't ever really have to let anyone use your property. But you cannot, by law, open it up to people of one race and not other people from other races. It is unlawful to do so. As I have said about a thousand times, I would personally boycott any business that discriminated in this way. However, I see no good reason on libertarian grounds that such freedom to associate with those whom you choose (Even if the standard is as silly as "White people") should be illegal. And I can't see any reason on ANY grounds that it is somehow more pro-property to deny them that right than to allow it and allow the invisible hand of the market to mete out any punishment for bigoted decisions.

Missed the point by a country mile, and I'm not too sure the first part of your paragraph supports the second.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, you do have to register for the selective service when you turn 18.

Noted. Thanks

If a significant number of people seriously cared about eliminating the draft permanently, especially via constitutional amendment, wouldn't more politicians run on that platform? Marketplace of ideas and all that garbage?

If enough people cared, probably. Why would they care about something they perceive as unlikely to affect them? Plus, a lot of older people do like the idea of enslaving the younger generation to support their armchari warhawking. A lot of them being Republicans

 

[Cutlass]

Maybe, the absence of government /= free market and the presence of government doesn't preclude a free market; but they aint taking private action when they round up people for slavery

So even though no government did it, and there was no government involvement, and the profit motives of private citizens was the only driving motivation, it was not a market result because you don't like the result.

That's crap reasoning at best.

Do the Aztecs count? You should talk to some Indians (and Africans) about the Spanish crown.

The Spanish crown outlawed that. But lacked the will and ability to actually stop it.

because genocide violates the private actions of the victims?

How is that even relevant? It is still private actors taking private actions for private profits. No government made a decision to make that happen.

@Cutlass-

We agree on this. But white supremacists do have property rights. You are proposing to take away their right to property and forcing them to let people of other races use it.

If you walk up to someone with a gun and take their car. And the police catch you and you go to court, can you tell the judge "it's my car, I took it fair and square?" No, you can't. And for the same reason white supremicists cannot steal the property of blacks and call it their own.

English

Clearly that's not true, or you wouldn't have just said that a federal action was not a federal action.

So we're going to ignore the governmental involvement in slavery through the ages as a result of warfare and regulation, neatly divide the timeline between before and after European colonization of North America even though the past set it up, then ignore government sanctions of slavery and then credit government regulation against it?

No, I'm not. I've never excused what government has done wrong. my point, could you be bothered to get off your high horse and actually read my points, instead of deciding for yourself what my points must have been, is that when you want the same policies that slavers want, and these nullification people clearly want the same policies that slavers want, and yet you claim you want opposite results, then you really need to rethink what you want and why you want it.

People want to repeal federal laws because they no with uncertainty that it will allow them to do far greater harm to the American people. That the primary defender of life, liberty and property in the US is the US federal government. That if they want to hurt others for power or profit, they first must get the feds out of the way. All of American history, up to and including today, prove that beyond dispute.

That is not saying that the feds are perfect. They are not. They have been the badguys any number of times. But they have also been the goodguy any number of times. And the times and places where the states have been the badguys overwhelms the times and places that the feds have been.

The fact that the Roman Empire enslaved people is in no way relevent to the fact that the US federal government did not start slavery in North America. People, acting privately, did. The feds took their sweet assed time stopping it, but they did.

Now given that these nullification people want policies that will make people far more the victims of tyranny, why do people who want liberty want the same policies? One side or the other is clearly wrong. And all of American history tells us that it is the libertarian side.

 

[Patroklos]

Aren't the states already represented by the Senate?

Originally yes, it is now just another popularly elected chamber with the states voters having equal representation.

The state governments have no input into the Federal government system at all.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Originally yes, it is now just another popularly elected chamber with the states voters having equal representation.

The state governments have no input into the Federal government system at all.

That's not true. One example: my state refuses to implement a healthcare exchange for Obamacare.

It's not a one way street, states have a lot of input in the federal government. Even though Senators are elected by the people, they still represent their state and push the State's agenda in the Senate. Too a lesser extent (because their districts aren't statewide), so do Representatives.

Yes, you do have to register for the selective service when you turn 18.

You do *have* to register, but unless you are going to college, it's really a non-issue.

They ask you when you apply for the FAFSA if you are registered, but AFAIK, they don't even check this.

In fact, they have no real enforcement mechanisms (besides withholding government loans and grants if you answer 'NO' on the FAFSA) to make sure you are registered. You are also required to tell them when you move until a certain age, but hardly anyone does.

One of the biggest criticisms of the selective service system now is that it's a waste of money. Since they don't check to see if people are registered, they don't check if you change addresses and they have no penalties or enforcement mechanisms for those who don't register or register their new addresses, the system is woefully innacurate.

If the draft were reinstated (which would take an act of Congress), they will have massive problems finding all the people that are supposed to be in the system.

Also, people should note that after Vietnam, the system was changed. There are no educational or family deferments (not 100% sure on the family deferments like if you are a father of young children or the last male in your lineage, but I know there are no educational defferments) anymore. All young men are eligable to be drafted, so it's much more equitable than it used to be. The only inequality left in the system is the fact that women aren't required to register.

 

[Leoreth]

Originally yes, it is now just another popularly elected chamber with the states voters having equal representation.

The state governments have no input into the Federal government system at all.

Well, the state governments are not identical to "the states". I guess the voters had their reason to choose people with different opinions for the state government and the senate if a disagreement occurs.

But did the state governments originally select the senators? Why was that changed?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, the state governments are not identical to "the states". I guess the voters had their reason to choose people with different opinions for the state government and the senate if a disagreement occurs.

But did the state governments originally select the senators? Why was that changed?

Yes, states legislatures (and I think some were appointed by govenors, but I'm not sure) used to elect Senators.

It was changed by constitutional ammendment because there was a desire to make government more accountable directly to the people. There may have also been some shennanigans that contributed to this desire(like cronyism and stuff).

But really the point that states have no input is way off. Every bill passed has pork for districts and states and big laws often include special deals for different regions/states and stuff.

 

[Antilogic]

Each state was originally allowed to set its own method for how senators would be selected. The most popular models were the governor nominating candidates that were approved by the state legislature, or the state legislature directly proposing and confirmng its own candidates. A few states instituted popular statewide elections for senators, and as this caught on the constitutional amendment was passed to make it uniform across the nation around a century ago.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, I'm not. I've never excused what government has done wrong. my point, could you be bothered to get off your high horse and actually read my points, instead of deciding for yourself what my points must have been, is that when you want the same policies that slavers want, and these nullification people clearly want the same policies that slavers want, and yet you claim you want opposite results, then you really need to rethink what you want and why you want it.

People want to repeal federal laws because they no with uncertainty that it will allow them to do far greater harm to the American people. That the primary defender of life, liberty and property in the US is the US federal government. That if they want to hurt others for power or profit, they first must get the feds out of the way. All of American history, up to and including today, prove that beyond dispute.

That is not saying that the feds are perfect. They are not. They have been the badguys any number of times. But they have also been the goodguy any number of times. And the times and places where the states have been the badguys overwhelms the times and places that the feds have been.

The fact that the Roman Empire enslaved people is in no way relevent to the fact that the US federal government did not start slavery in North America. People, acting privately, did. The feds took their sweet assed time stopping it, but they did.

Now given that these nullification people want policies that will make people far more the victims of tyranny, why do people who want liberty want the same policies? One side or the other is clearly wrong. And all of American history tells us that it is the libertarian side.

Don't own a horse. I'll walk, thank you.

I don't think you are being disingenuous, I think you're being honest - but you paint too broadly with this brush. The issue as far as state rights vs federal supremacy is often a debate on the balance of power between local governance vs a larger more centralized government. Ok, so lets roll with your premise - all(almost) local autonomy in the US is oppressive by nature and merely a tool of the racist and selfish. Why on earth then do we care if Quebec wants more local rule, or Wales, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or Tibet, or Hong Kong, or the ROC, or the Kurds, or etc etc etc etc etc... ad nauseum? Surely a larger, more centralized government would more adequately protect the rights of all. Or is this somehow a purely American phenomenon?

 

[Evie]

if Quebec wants more local rule

Someone calls for me?

There are those who would argue that Quebec wanting more local rule is fundamentally about discrimination; specifically about protecting Francophone North American culture by giving it a homeland of its own (same apply for Welsh, etc), and about these groups nto feeling at home in the home state.

Of course, the counter opint many other swould have made is to ask whether it's really discriminatory to state that a minority group has a right to ensure its own continued existence, so long as it try to do so with minimal interference in the rights of others.

But ultimately, it would be fair to say that Quebec is a more exclusive government than Canada.

 

[Farm Boy]

Someone calls for me?

There are those who would argue that Quebec wanting more local rule is fundamentally about discrimination; specifically about protecting Francophone North American culture by giving it a homeland of its own (same apply for Welsh, etc), and about these groups nto feeling at home in the home state.

Of course, the counter opint many other swould have made is to ask whether it's really discriminatory to state that a minority group has a right to ensure its own continued existence, so long as it try to do so with minimal interference in the rights of others.

But ultimately, it would be fair to say that Quebec is a more exclusive government than Canada.

As TF would say, "fair dos.(I think that was you TF)" Should we decide that this is a despicable movement with bad motives then? How about the other examples? Is a new era of empire building the wave of the future for enlightenment and civil rights?

 

[say1988]

There are those who would argue that Quebec wanting more local rule is fundamentally about discrimination; specifically about protecting Francophone North American culture by giving it a homeland of its own (same apply for Welsh, etc), and about these groups nto feeling at home in the home state.

Of course, the counter opint many other swould have made is to ask whether it's really discriminatory to state that a minority group has a right to ensure its own continued existence, so long as it try to do so with minimal interference in the rights of others.

No, it is discriminatory to restrict minority groups from using their languages as Quebec so proudly does. Quebec is unquestionably the worst government in Canada for discrimination.

 

[Evie]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the first group I described (and an absolutist who think only his opinion is right and unquestionable). I shan't debate him here because it's really besides the point of the thread, and he seems more interested in spreading falsehoods than useful discussion. Consider my point made.

Back on the more general topic of local vs national government, I wouldn't describe it as more evil, but I would say that in general local governments are better at representing specific local cultural majority. Which can be good, or bad. The larger the nation, the less likely you are to find one uniform majority that can then band in coalition to dictate their will to all minorities. On the flip side, the less likely that the specific needs of specific groups will be adressed.