Think Rand Paul is an intellectual lightweight?

[TheLastOne36]

I wonder if he's any less bigoted, racist, misogynistic or homophobic than his father.

 

[Abegweit]

How can the state be thuggish? A thug is a violent, criminal entity.

Sounds like a pretty good definition of the state. What exactly do you think bombing wedding parties is? Warm fuzzies?

Abegweit is an anarchist, so he probably sees the state as criminal itself.

Indeed.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Let it be clear that I'm not agreeing with that, just recognizing that that is the opinion you hold (I do, however, think that most modern states do engage in behavior that could be described in similar terms.)

 

[Abegweit]

I do, however, think that most modern states do engage in behavior that could be described in similar terms.

All modern states do. Just like the ancient ones did. There is no exception. The purpose of the state is to provide a legal means for the powerful to steal from - and control - the powerless. The only difference between the ancients and the moderns is that the latter try to obfuscate their purpose while the former made no bones about it. This is progress, I suppose.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The state also does some good things, such as protecting property rights and whatnot. Now, I know you could hire private agents to do this, but that's not necessarily practical.

If you wish to argue that government is too intrusive and needs reduction, I 100% agree there (I really wanted to see Dr. Paul win this GOP Primary) but I do think there are certain legitimate functions of the state that should remain.

 

[G-Max]

Fiscally conservative/socially liberal seems like a cop-out to me. If you want socially liberal policies, e.g., gay marriage, but you want it for the wrong reason, e.g., States rights, you are also going to compromise the ADA, Civil Rights Act, FLSA in the name of "state's rights,"

Have you ever head the phrase "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?" Well, the Pauls disagree with authoritarian policies, but defend the right of states to impose them. It's not a cop-out at all.

None of that is really courageous anyways. The fiscal conservative stuff is what brings in the big cash donors in industry anyways since they are the ones who benefit from it,

Opposing corporate welfare brings in the big cash donors?

Opposing regulations that stifle small and medium businesses but have little effect on big businesses brings in the big cash donors?

"State's rights" is effectively incompatible with being socially liberal. State tyrants are no less so than federal tyrants.

Wrong. State tyrants impose their tyranny on far fewer people.

What is an example of "tyrannically forcing people not to vote tyranny on themselves"?

Roe v. Wade?

I wonder if he's any less bigoted, racist, misogynistic or homophobic than his father.

Ron is none of those things. Please try again.

Insufficient as my knowledge of American history is, I don't recall Southern whites imposing Jim Crow laws on themselves.

I don't recall whites being allowed to drink from fountains marked "colored".

Proponents of state's rights continue to use the tenth amendment as a reason to ignore the fourteenth.

Examples, please.

the Constitution is purposely vague.

Nope, it's actually quite specific.

One of the things I find bizarre about the American system of government is how all levels have the right to legislate on anything.

Actually, they don't have the right to do that... they just do it anyway.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Actually I didn't say that. But I just re-read the Amendment and I have to agree. It certainly makes parts of the CRA legal, at least those parts which strike down racist state legislation. However, there is nothing in the Amendment which justifies the attacks on private property.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

How can the state be thuggish? A thug is a violent, criminal entity.

Yeah, the state never perpetrates violence against innocent people. We have no War on Drugs. We don't have a law allowing US citizens to be arrested on US soil and detained indefinitely without charges. We have never had the government order the extrajudicial killing of US citizens overseas. There was no Trail of Tears in our history, no internment of citizens of Japanese descent.

And all of that is in a "free" country. Government violence in totalitarian countries is Bush/Obama x1000.

 

[Abegweit]

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Are you trying to claim that the amendment says that Congress can attack private individuals using their private property. If so, where? What provision allows any government thug to attack private property?

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Are you trying to claim that the amendment says that Congress can attack private individuals using their private property. If so, where? What provision allows any government thug to attack private property?

Where is private property attacked by the Civil Rights Act? There are still whites-only private clubs. The Civil Rights Act applies to public accommodations.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Fiscally conservative/socially liberal seems like a cop-out to me. If you want socially liberal policies, e.g., gay marriage, but you want it for the wrong reason, e.g., States rights, you are also going to compromise the ADA, Civil Rights Act, FLSA in the name of "state's rights," and you are going to compromise unemployment benefits, eliminating medicaid, and eliminating social security in the name of being a "fiscal conservative." You basically arrive back at square one--being a Republican. No thanks.

None of that is really courageous anyways. The fiscal conservative stuff is what brings in the big cash donors in industry anyways since they are the ones who benefit from it, and you can still keep all the crazy social conservatives in your fold by cloaking your ideals in "state's rights" rather than the ideals of equality or whatever, so you're not compromising anything. This whole Ron/Rand Paul thing has always been totally bogus. The Ron Paul debate quote where he says the sick person who does not have insurance should just die basically sums up the ultimate silliness of his world view when you boil it down. Those surface things these guys say like no more foreign wars or what have you, they are ultimately just as bad as the next guy because they are saying these things for all the wrong reasons.

edit: I should add that few Rand Paul dudes are pro-gay rights anyways so that's probably an outlandish example...

It's ironic you use that as your example. CNN and Wolf Blitzer certainly framed the question that way, but Ron Paul said an emphatic, "No!" if someone was to left to die. He's actually worked in an emergency room and made these life/death decisions and has always been on the right side. If the hospital or government dropped the ball, he'd care for people out of his own pocket.

Side note, I spend much of my time on these Paul threads correcting many of these misconceptions people have come to believe through the media or hearsay.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Where is private property attacked by the Civil Rights Act? There are still whites-only private clubs. The Civil Rights Act applies to public accommodations.

Technically a restaurant I open to the public is still my property, so I should probably be allowed to make it "Whites' only" if I want. I don't really care about that though. I'm not going to waste my time defending racists when there are a lot more important things I can do with my time.

I will definitely spend the time defending people's rights to allow people to smoke on their property if they want, even if its open to the public. Just 'cause its open doesn't mean you have to go. Some states ban smoking in all restaurants, which is just stupid.

 

[JollyRoger]

I will definitely spend the time defending people's rights to allow people to smoke on their property if they want, even if its open to the public. Just 'cause its open doesn't mean you have to go. Some states ban smoking in all restaurants, which is just stupid.

I really hate the state laws that forbid smoking in abortion clinics.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I really hate the state laws that forbid smoking in abortion clinics.

*Simply arguing prolife side* Murder isn't OK even if it is on your property.

I'm talking about laws that forbid smoking in public establishments, where both nicotine and the public business are legal, but for some reason illegal when combined.

 

[JollyRoger]

*Simply arguing prolife side* Murder isn't OK even if it is on your property.

I'm talking about laws that forbid smoking in public establishments, where both nicotine and the public business are legal, but for some reason illegal when combined.

Abortion is legal. Smoking in an abortion clinic should be legal. Providing abortions in a restaurant's dining room room while smoking should be legal.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

I will definitely spend the time defending people's rights to allow people to smoke on their property if they want, even if its open to the public. Just 'cause its open doesn't mean you have to go. Some states ban smoking in all restaurants, which is just stupid.

I agree with you there. Of course, that's the state government trampling the rights of the business owner, not the feds.

I will always take a smoke-free restaurant over one that allows smoking, but I have no desire to force that on others (beyond voting with my wallet).

 

[GhostWriter16]

I agree with you there. Of course, that's the state government trampling the rights of the business owner, not the feds.

I will always take a smoke-free restaurant over one that allows smoking, but I have no desire to force that on others (beyond voting with my wallet).

I know its the state, I basically wanted to say "Technically my ideology allows for X, but I don't really care if X happens, I do, however, really want to see Y happen, which is also allowed by my ideology" if you know what I'm saying.

I'll always take smoke-free or "Smoking in designated areas" as long as I'm not in the designated area, but I agree, I can't stand the smell of smoke personally.

 

[Crezth]

Wrong. State tyrants impose their tyranny on far fewer people.

It is harder to resist and oppose the wrongs of 50 disjointed, disconnected, sovereign tyrants than the wrong of just 1 tyrant.

 

[G-Max]

It is harder to resist and oppose the wrongs of 50 disjointed, disconnected, sovereign tyrants than the wrong of just 1 tyrant.

Unless a person happens to exist in all 50 states simultaneously, I fail to see how this is relevant.

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

How can the state be thuggish? A thug is a violent, criminal entity.

Because both the thug and the government use force or the threat of force to carry out their intentions.

Example: Saudi Arabia where homosexual acts are subject to the death penalty.

Wouldn't it be preferable if power wasn't centralized within Saudi Arabia and the provinces had some level of autonomy, where homosexuals would be welcomed, or at least not executed? Even if only one providence had more lenient laws concerning homosexuals, by simply existing it would allow people to vote with their feet and they could have at least one bastion of freedom within a centralized state to move to.