Is Ron Paul supporting individual freedoms, or freedom of State Government for unlimited rule?

According to my research:
- Ron Paul would be OK with state government banning all abortions, even criminalising travelling to other states for abortion (!), when you live in a state where its illegal. When you were born in such state and cannot move out, and STAY out, too bad for you.
- Ron Paul would be OK with trumping basic human right of children for education based on scientific consensus, and substituting it with ideological brainwashing, as long as its state, not federal government doing it. When you were born in such state and cannot move out (as a child you cant), too bad for you.
- Ron Paul would be OK with persecution based on race or sexual orientation, as long as its state, not federal government allowing or doing it. When you were born in such state and cannot move out, too bad for you.

How is tyranny of state government better than tyranny of federal government? Especially since its easier to pass laws which are against minorities and civil liberties in smaller government than in federal government. Is trumping civil liberties suddenly OK when its State government doing it?

reply to post by Maslo

Point 1 is twisted..

As far as I know he holds the opinion that if killing a unborn child is murder, then there is no difference between abortion and say stabbing a pregnant woman..

Point 2

Reference?

Point 3

Reference?

You're going to need examples here. Generalizations are not going to work in this sort of discussion.

I would also like examples


Generally, what I hear Ron Paul saying, is that power needs to be returned to individual states on ALL home based issues. He has said many times that what he believes should not influence them whatsoever. He personally does not believe in abortion, but (as he says) its not up to him. Its up to the state.


And I agree - states should be governing their own people. People should be governing themselves.


If my kid doesn't like the state I live in, too bad - he can move when he grows up.

reply to post by Maslo


I thought Ron Paul was supporting the constitution and whatever that entails..

He is also not against changing the constitution as long as it's done using the means described in the constitution..

ie: He understands that times and the world do change.

reply to post by Miraj


2.
www.ronpaul.com...

That means if local authorities or parents decide to teach their children ideological propaganda instead of science, there will be noone to stop them from such child abuse. This opinion of a college teacher from the comments is very relevant:

Now, I don’t see students until they get to college, BUT it is a hell of a lot harder to teach them when I have to catch ‘em up to speed because they have competing accounts of what ‘Darwinism’, ‘Science’, ‘Truth’, ‘Knowledge’ (and more often than not their accounts have nothing to do with the profession and/or conventional standards).

Ultimately, there are conventions that are really helpful to know. A whole slew of the kids I see who came from home-schooling backgrounds are missing enormous chunks of stuff. The person who is taught that ‘science’ has confirmed that dinosaurs and humans lived together, that women are ‘naturally dumber’ than men OR that math and logic are ‘just tools of oppression’ (yes I have encountered students espousing each of these beliefs) are at a decidedly unfair disadvantage just because their parents had some really goofy ideological commitments.

3. www.ronpaul.com...

I agree on his points on mandatory racial quotas and such, but he is not saying only that. He essentially says this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7be1418d2ab.jpg[/atsimg]
should be also allowed.

reply to post by Maslo
so you're saying .... feds should remain involved for the good of the people?
except you cite a source of it happening anyway?

just trying to be clear


The problem in that situation is the parent.

its turning fed law back over to state law where it belongs, i dont see any problem with that.

if state legislators want to end their careers by trying to push some dumb # like that through, then they can go ahead and try.

thankfully the people have alot more say in state government than fed government so they would have a better chance of being heard anyway.

its going to be very hard to spin constitutionality into something bad, nice try though.

reply to post by Miraj

As far as I know he holds the opinion that if killing a unborn child is murder, then there is no difference between abortion and say stabbing a pregnant woman..

Fundamental human right issues like these should not be decided by mob rule, but by educated discussion in court. This has already happened - Roe vs. Wade.
Making abortion arbitrarily extempt from it shows that Ron Paul is OK with trumping of basic woman rights, as long as its done by local mob rule, and not by federal government.

My point in this thread is that democracy is NOT freedom (of the individual). Democracy is simply dictatorship of the majority. Democracy leads to freedom ONLY if majority is pro-freedom. If majority is not pro-freedom, democracy will lead to more restriction of freedoms.

reply to post by Forevever

except you cite a source of it happening anyway?

So murder should be legalised, I mean, it happens anyway..

I think such things will happen far more when southern anti-intellectuals would be legally allowed to do it.

Originally posted by Maslo
How is tyranny of state government better than tyranny of federal government? Especially since its easier to pass laws which are against minorities and civil liberties in smaller government than in federal government. Is trumping civil liberties suddenly OK when its State government doing it?

So you believe that protect our cvil liberties, the Federal Government should restrict certain liberties??

Giving up Liberty for Security sounds awfully familiar.

I think I am with Ron on this one... I honestly trust my state and local government much more than anyone in DC. If my local representatives are stupid enough to pass any vile type of ordinance.. Well, I know where they live..

Ron Paul appears to be an extreme libertarian, and, in practice, libertarianism isn't far removed from anarchy and the inevitable ochlocracy that entails from that ideology.

From some of the statements I've read from him, I would agree that his ideology would be extremely dangerous if it was ever implemented. Localised mob rule is one of the very reasons why there has to be a centralised body of law to protect those who may fall prey to the workings of some backwardass community.

The problem is that the majority of people always seem to wildly swing from one extreme to another, when they are unhappy with the status quo. Libertarianism is the ''in thing'' at the moment because people are fed up with the corporatist oligarchy. If, hypothetically, libertarianism ever became an actual reality, then once that system failed, people would be demanding tighter controls and tougher laws from a centralised government.

Originally posted by Maslo
Fundamental human right issues like these should not be decided by mob rule, but by educated discussion in court. This has already happened - Roe vs. Wade.
Making abortion arbitrarily extempt from it shows that Ron Paul is OK with trumping of basic woman rights, as long as its done by local mob rule, and not by federal government.

Nobody should have a ''right'' to kill a child, whether a court says so or not. However, I'm not going to be drawn in to that Debate.

I mention it because you're going on about how these ''human rights'' should be decided in courts, despite the fact that the same court which ruled in favour of legalising abortion - the Supreme Court of the US - has also historically ruled in favour of a person's ''right'' to own slaves, and has also previously ruled in favour of denying women the right to vote. Decisions that, by your argument, were fine, because they were decided by ''educated'' people in court.

What could easily happen with Ron Paul is President is all the Mormons moving to Utah, populating the State government with their people and basically making any law with regards to their religion that they want. Not to single out Mormons or their beliefs but just using them as an example.

Civil Rights could also be legislated out and Ron Paul would be ok with that also. It's up to the States and he seems to forget that it wasn't that long ago when States were in favor of Jim Crowe laws. Anyone remember David Duke?

And Ron Paul is misusing the term Constitutionalist. The Constitution was written "to form a more perfect Union" by bringing power to the federal governement because prior to that the States had all the power and was not an effective way to run the country. The founders agreed that giving all the power to the States was not working.

Ron Paul is more an anti-federalist than a constitutionalist.

What's stopping the federal government from having total freedom(tyranny?) The only difference is that we could at least have the option of 50 different totalitarian states as opposed to just one.

But I think what Ron Paul is getting at is first changing the federal government, and his supporters are supposed to take that libertarian philosophy to their individual towns and cities and make sure government there stays out of people's business.

reply to post by Maslo


I think Ron Paul is for almost unlimited State rule, but in a country with 50 states, competitiveness should cause common sense to win out. For example, if abortion is illegal in one state, another state will gladly make it legal to collect the residents, doctors, and tax money.

The problem I see is this: At first, it would be nice for like-minded people to live together and have no interference, but eventually, we would see a majorly divided country. Gay States and Straight States and Mormon States and Smart States and Dumb States, etc., etc. We already have that to some degree, but it isn't as severe as it would be in a Ron Paul world.

Still, Ron Paul has some great ideas that will move the country back in the correct direction, and he is the perfect prescription for our current ailments. The US only allows someone to be president for 8 years, so Ron Paul can steer us back on course, and whatever shortcomings he has will be offset by the next president.

Ron Paul continually says that he thinks business should have the "right" to refuse service to someone based on the color of the skin.

He goes on to say that he doesn't personally agree with it and that he is positive the market would regulate it


Just by seeing the racism here on ATS, even with the T&C, I think anyone who thinks there would not be "white only" clubs that pop up around the nation over night is delusional. And if you don't think those clubs would be packed...then you are also delusional.


This one issue alone is enough for me to not support Ron Paul...and yet there are so many more issues just like this one where his extremism forces him into illogical positions.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I think Ron Paul is for almost unlimited State rule, but in a country with 50 states, competitiveness should cause common sense to win out.

This is the great fallacy that Ron Paul and his supporters hang on.


Let's wipe out federal laws and let's just hope that things work out

Let's allow people to openly discriminate and just hope people are not really racist anymore

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I admitted to the possible flaws in his philosophy.

The beauty of this country is in the term limits. In a maximum of 8 years, he can steer the country back towards a conservative base, and he can limit the powers of the Federal Govt to a certain extent, but in all likelihood, the next president will come in and be more liberal.

The direction of our country veers left and right from center, but by virture of our Constitution and our Democratic process, it never goes too far in either direction. Right now, we are almost split. We are extremely left leaning in social programs and overall spending, and over-legislating, but we are extremely right leaning in the Patriot Act and war-spending and over-taxing of the middle class.

Ron Paul stands to correct both areas and bring us back to the center. Sure, he has his own flaws, but let him fix the current ailments, and then let the next guy fix whatever unforeseen repercussions he/she inherits from Paul. Nobody is perfect.

reply to post by Maslo


I'm going to go with, occupants of the state are involved in governing the state, and the states are part of the union, so maybe it all falls back on US, as it should be, to be involved in running not only our mouths by our lives.

I'm going to go with individuals.
Final Answer.

Originally posted by filosophia
What's stopping the federal government from having total freedom(tyranny?) The only difference is that we could at least have the option of 50 different totalitarian states as opposed to just one.

But I think what Ron Paul is getting at is first changing the federal government, and his supporters are supposed to take that libertarian philosophy to their individual towns and cities and make sure government there stays out of people's business.

And I agree with what you just said.
Final Answer.