ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
I hate applied too. I didn't go and waste years of my life doing a PhD though, I'd rather be winning an academy award or some German award we only saw a photo of
Think Rand Paul is an intellectual lightweight?
- Thread starter Cryptic_Snow
- Start date
jtb1127
Deity
You're right, they are no less than federal ones. They're a lot worse.
mangxema
I
Very well said.
I don't think Rand Paul is stupid. I do think that he is very politically out of step with important issues like Civil Rights and Taxes. The "Libertarian" position of Rand is really not functionally different from typical Republianism.
And that I think is why is good to put libertarian in quotes. All the social aspect of libertarianism really means is that in a free society you have the right to do whatever you want, so long as you aren't hurting anybody else. That last part is key, and seems to be the part other allegedly libertarianish people tend to forget.
Also, the 'states rights' point that illram is somewhat misleading. States' rights doesn't necessarily have anything to do with libertarianism per se. It is true that libertarians tend to prefer more local solutions, and that a lot of states' rights folks tend to spoil it for legitimately principled people (VRWCAgent, for one). But if say Alabama decided to ghetto the gays or something, I don't think you'd actually see many libertarians say, 'Well, let Alabama do its thing.' Most would, I think, rather properly say, 'No, gays get to live wherever the hell they want.' And honestly I really wouldn't consider those who act in the former manner to be proper libertarians, whom I would expect to be strong defenders of civil liberties.
jtb1127
Deity
Proponents of state's rights continue to use the tenth amendment as a reason to ignore the fourteenth. Libertarians tend to support this view.
mangxema
I
And that is why I don't support a Ron Paul--although I do like having him in the race to give a counter-argument about certain issues in debates.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
Indeed the federal government has no business doing any such thing. The 10th Amendment is quite clear on the matter. However, there is also the 14th Amendment which clearly states that the courts should apply the Bill of Rights to the individual states. E.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is clearly illegal. The way to strike down Jim Crow was through the courts.
However, this isn't really a libertarian POV. It's more Constitutionalist. Ron Paul talks that way a lot.
How is the Civil Rights Act clearly illegal?
jtb1127
Deity
That doesn't make any sense. The Fourteenth amendment clearly makes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legal. You just said so.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
@JR.
For the same reason that applies to just about everything else the federal government does: enumerated powers. There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government the right to legislate on, say, housing.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's quite clear.
Edit: see comments in the next post.
For the same reason that applies to just about everything else the federal government does: enumerated powers. There is nothing in the Constitution which gives the federal government the right to legislate on, say, housing.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's quite clear.
Edit: see comments in the next post.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
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.
Good thing the Constitution is purposely vague.
The 10th Amendment does not have the word "expressly" like the Articles of Confederation did (you must remember that the Constitution was a Federal power grab). This was to give strength to the Necessary and Proper Clause, which would give the Feds the ability to legislate regarding housing in proper contexts.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
It doesn't have the word "penultimate" either. Neither changes anything. It is quite clear as written. Similarly, there is nothing in the Necessary and Proper Clause which gives the feds authority over housing. You are right that the Constitution was a federal power grab, though.
And the anti-federalists were right that the Constitution would be abused; its plain wording would be twisted to mean the exact opposite of what was written by power-hungry politicians and their cronies in the black robes.
If you combine the fact that the fight was lost to include the word "expressly" in the 10th Amendment with the non-express nature of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Feds have implicit powers when used in combination with an express power. Thus you have gun, bullet, and powder acquisition mandates and federal government takeovers of the lighthouse industry right from the start.
GhostWriter16
Deity
As a constitutionalist, I definitely agree the ninth amendment can trump the tenth in certain cases. And I would say that yeah, ghettoing the gays would fall under that. Now, I would say that since secession isn't banned, if Alabama wanted to make its own country, that would be a different matter. In fact, forcing gays to live in the ghettoes would break eminant domain as well, and so would be clearly illegal.
I don't think Ron Paul said that precisely.
Not until you have hand written the Constitution 50 times so you are no longer constantly getting caught being unaware of the actual text.
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
One of the things I find bizarre about the American system of government is how all levels have the right to legislate on anything. The rule is quite simple: the biggest thugs rule. If that happens to be an individual state, they win. If its the feds, they win. If the feds are thuggier on one point and the state on another, then the thuggier version comes to the forefront in both cases. In Canada and other federal countries, there actually is a doctrine of separation of powers.
This also applies to police forces. In the US, there are three or four different shakedown artists on the highways at any one time. Then the FBI SWAT teams swoop in and attack marijuana dispensaries even in states where they are legal. In Ontario, for example, it's quite different. The Provincial Police roam the major highways while the city police go after the smaller ones. They do not mix things up except when in hot pursuit. And the Mounties simply don't get involved at all.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
How can the state be thuggish? A thug is a violent, criminal entity.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Abegweit is an anarchist, so he probably sees the state as criminal itself.
Similar threads
