It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Well, that shows a sad lack of faith in your fellow man and americans in general


In short, yes.

I may even go as far to say that not only do I lack faith in most of my fellow americans...I out right fear the thought of them having any type of control and inacting their crazy ideas.

Let's look at ATS...a small microcosm...we need strict T&C and a load of mods because people don't know how to act civily on their own. But you are right...they would govern themselves just fine in the real world




posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


In the real world, consequences are much more real and immediate. People will do and say things from behind a monitor that they would never do in real life!

But, I still agree with you. I fear the panicky public as well! There would be a hard transition period while the idiots weeded themselves out, and the several decades where we have usurped natural selection would have to correct themselves, but in time, the country would reach an equilibrium that was closer in tune with what nature intended.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


But aren't we forgetting that with less federal government control, the control will shift to those with the most power...which means those with the most money?

And with Ron Paul not wanting to interfere...what stops corporations from running the state?


I don't think it is realistic to believe that "the people" will be in control anymore than they are now. But I would rather have the government in control than a profit driven corporation.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Come on! If these were the views of Ron Paul, how could he have held office for so long? Dr. Paul is a strict Constitutionalist, and as a student of same, adherence to it's principles is Ron Paul's base of belief, just as mine is. Ron Paul is Winning, and the Media, and the Pundits, and the Republicans and the Democrats and the Rich Elite and Banking Cartel are plain scared to death he will win the presidency. If he does, I am convinced he will clean house of that nest of vipers.

For Ron Paul supporters. Check Dr. Paul's voting record, and do not believe all of this hype that he believes this and that. His record speaks for itself.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
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.

Democracy is (Majority) Mob rule....Thank goodness we live in a constitutionally protected Republic where the rights of the minority are supposed to be guaranteed...The federal government has over stepped its mandate,by essentially shredding the 10th amendment....Giving the states the right to nullify unconstitutional law. Your Solomonesque resolution to our problems ,putting hard decisions in the hands of the few,is short sighted in my opinion....You are trading one dictator for a few dictators...no gain there!



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


But aren't we forgetting that with less federal government control, the control will shift to those with the most power...which means those with the most money?

And with Ron Paul not wanting to interfere...what stops corporations from running the state?


I don't think it is realistic to believe that "the people" will be in control anymore than they are now. But I would rather have the government in control than a profit driven corporation.


I think you are right on point in that description, and it would be identical to the way it is now, but with one exception. The Federal Government would not be interfering with the rights of the people, and therefore, we would be a little bit more empowered to do something about the corporate control. Right now, the corporations are protected from any backlash for their actions. They have the FDA, and the FED, and the Dept of Ag, and only the little guys suffer at the hands of those agencies.

If we removed all of the government protections for the corps, then maybe, hopefully the regular person could compete in a free market, and maybe there would be dire consequences for the corporations raping us.

I know there are several of my favorite states that would look empathetically on an individual fighting back against the corporate monster, so perhaps we could make some progress if the Fed stepped out of the way.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Also corruption is easier handled in one institution than 50. If you see a Congressman taking kick-backs it's relatively easy to get him out however trying to keep track of legislators in 50 States is a bit more time consuming.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 




The Patriot Act was a decent piece of legislation for an extremely limited time after 9/11, but it should have been allowed to expire on the very first go around, but instead, it has been repeatedly renewed and expanded. It needs to be repealed immediately!


I couldn't agree more. What better fight for a group of people who are supposed to be defending the Constitution to engage in? If this were the agenda of the Tea Party, if it were even on the "list of things to do" I could support them. But it isn't even mentioned, it is swept under the rug.
What do those DON'T TREAD ON ME t-shirts mean anyway? Is this in case they get drunk and fall down at the party? Don't tread on what?
I am disturbed about it because it is not as if these are rights we lost years ago. We just lost them and rather than restore the ESSENTIAL provisions and protections laid out in our Constitution we are taking away MORE of them. Somebody is asleep at the wheel.
Now our protection from illegal search and seizure is being taken away. Eventually I expect there will be nothing worthwhile left except a bunch of signatures good only for autograph hounds, because as a "The Constitution" it is about as good as wallpaper right now.
edit on 25-8-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


I don't know about that?

The smaller and more local we get it, the more scrutiny we can provide. The DC crowd is so entrenched and isolated from the public, and they have bought the press, and they have 2 centuries of cover-ups in DC. Even the Emergency Rooms, Hookers, and Drug Dealers in DC are part of the "in" crowd.

I believe bringing the stuff to the State and Local level will make it much easier to monitor.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


As Lincoln, who also suspended Habeas Corpus, eventually reinstated it i'm sure that our Congress will do the same. However the terrorists are still as active if not more so making the law as viable today as it was after 9-11. And though the Patriot Act does not define in clear terms who they label a terroist I believe you would be seeing alot more stories of people falsly being prosecuted under this if that was their intent.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by newcovenant
 


As Lincoln, who also suspended Habeas Corpus, eventually reinstated it i'm sure that our Congress will do the same. However the terrorists are still as active if not more so making the law as viable today as it was after 9-11. And though the Patriot Act does not define in clear terms who they label a terroist I believe you would be seeing alot more stories of people falsly being prosecuted under this if that was their intent.




Let me tell you how TPTB work...slowly and over a lot of time.
Step one...erode individual rights and protections...

You are not going to want to know the rest.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Why?

Lincoln was a Patriot, now we have Corporatists.

It has been 10 years, there have been no terrorist activities in the US unless you count the fear-mongering by the Press Corps! There is some huge doubt as to whether or not 9/11 was even a terrorist activity to begin with? It was mostly Saudi's and Pakistani money, yet we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq? Doesn't seem like we were really going after "terrorists" does it?

Anyhow, what would be the incentive in today's political culture to voluntarily reinstate Habeus Corpus? In my opinion, the only way it gets reinstated, is by threat of force by the people. With enough backlash, they will have to reverse the Patriot Act to keep the peace, but right now, there are still plenty of people still agreeing with the Act, and voluntarily suspending their rights, so nobody is going to step up the way Lincoln did. And, look what happened to Lincoln in the long run. It isn't good for self-preservation to cross TPTB.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

I may even go as far to say that not only do I lack faith in most of my fellow americans...I out right fear the thought of them having any type of control and inacting their crazy ideas.

And I fear the crazy ideas that are already enacted on a nationwide level by Washington, that we can't do anything to combat due to the perverse assumption that federal laws not authorized under the contract that federal employees swear an oath to uphold somehow override the decisions of the states and the people.

You are seriously willing to dismiss all the other abuses, shortcomings, and outright ignorances of centralization I didn't mention in addition to what I did just because you think people in DC are somehow less crazy than people in the states, although the evidence on a good many matters argues quite strongly against that?

With the country's current dissatisfaction - which will get worse as things *are* going to get much more rough prior to the election - Obama is facing a likely loss...and some of his primary challengers are talking about actual constitutional amendments to prohibit gay marriage, abortion, etc., at the federal level. No state challenges allowed, no arguments. I'm sure you'll look at it optimistically and assume that it can never happen - but what if you're wrong, and it can. You'll still be glad for that federal power?

Or let's bring this closer to the matter at hand - very much hypothetical and unlikely to happen, of course, but possible based on the stance of centralization of authority - what if you're right to be scared about what some americans might do, and someone who disagrees with the civil rights act (or whatever) on a nation-wide level eventually gets into office and can somehow reverse that and related legislation and not return the authority for such to the states -since federal law supposedly trumps state law- thus effectively legalizing discrimination across the board in all states, preventing any legal challenges to it, with no states able to introduce legislation to counter this?

It is simply shortsighted and irrational in my opinion to give so much authority and control over so many people on so many issues to such a small group so far isolated from any serious challenge by the people to correct any abuses they may commit.

I'm definitely sorry we can't agree on this, but as the opinions of the majority in power shift (enabled by discontent of and overreaction by the majority enabling actual crazies to assume power - see Germany circa 1930s for example), I'm afraid you might eventually find yourself much less a fan of federal government power than you are now.

Take care, Outkast. No offense intended here, I'd just much rather have my messes closer to home so they're easier to clean up.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


But aren't we forgetting that with less federal government control, the control will shift to those with the most power...which means those with the most money?

And with Ron Paul not wanting to interfere...what stops corporations from running the state?


I don't think it is realistic to believe that "the people" will be in control anymore than they are now. But I would rather have the government in control than a profit driven corporation.
But the rhetoric is that the corporations ALREADY control this country. If thst is true, gutting what they yank around on puppet strings will mean that they have to regroup. There are laws that can be put in place to prevent Corporations from controling things, but it won't happen when those who are NOW in control are already in their back pocket.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


And the states could make a law that no one can jam or jelly toast at 5pm, on the second Tuesday, of ever other month............ Would they? lol I'm sure they wouldn't.

Just because you are hung, does not mean your going to be a porn star.

At any moment I could do any thing, just because I can..... But I don't. I pick my moves wisely. Like most people.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.


This. Ron Paul is for liberty. If there is some extremist state that wishes to ban abortion and make all types of rules, people will either decide to move, accept it as a rule or protest against it and petition it to be changed. I don't think thinking in terms of what the risks are is a correct way of thinking.. Ron Paul wants to give you back your liberty, take away the FED that over taxes you, over regulates you and obstructs your rights.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I might not always agree with what you are saying, but I do enjoy reading your comments in regards to these political threads. Always well thought out, and almost always based from intelligent thought rather than emotional outbursts. All too rare in a political conversation. Thanks!



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by Maslo
 


And the states could make a law that no one can jam or jelly toast at 5pm, on the second Tuesday, of ever other month............ Would they? lol I'm sure they wouldn't.

Just because you are hung, does not mean your going to be a porn star.

At any moment I could do any thing, just because I can..... But I don't. I pick my moves wisely. Like most people.


Except that you can see just such silly examples of state laws in our past. You might even find that at some point in time, in one state or another, your jelly law actually existed in our past. not saying it did, but similarly insane laws did exist.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
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?



edit on 25/8/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Here's another:

- Ron Paul would be opposed to the federal government criminalizing abortions. Simply put, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to do so. The 10th Amendment says that authority not granted to the federal government goes to the states or the people. It doesn't necessarily follow that states have the authority to ban abortions. I would think that medical proceedures fall under the category of personal choice, and I believe Ron Paul would agree.

- Ron Paul would be opposed to brainwashing programs under the guise of education being forced on people by the federal government. While state governments may try to do this, I don't see how that can be prevented except through state legislators. If you're stuck in a state that has a majority population of religious zealots, they will influence their state legislators to push their agenda. Unfortunately, that happens at the federal level, too. What are children taught today about the Federal Reserve and our money system? The only thing you can do is to teach your children yourself the things you think it is important for them to know.

- Ron Paul is opposed to having the federal government telling people how to run their business. Personally, I agree with that, even if that means a business has the right to institute discriminitory policies. After all, the federal government discriminates in its hiring policies all the time. I believe that a business succeeds or fails based on the decisions of the owners. If they think their business would do better with a "No _______ " allowed, let them try. Some restaurants are doing OK with a "No Children" policy so far, and almost all bars have a "No Minors" policy. If they want to pass up hiring better qualified people to select lesser candidates, well, I think that their bottom line will reflect that decision, and I support the right of any business owner to make their own decisions, no matter how stupid I think they are. If a business thinks they can prosper by turning away paying customers, it would be a lesson learned to the next business that occupies that building.

State governments have no more constitutional authority to restrict civil liberties than the federal government does. And people can fight back against a corrupt state government easier than a corrupt federal government.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Did you ever stop to consider that possibly the reason there has been no terrorist attacks in 10 years is because of the Patriot Act?

You cannot discount that possibility and frankly I find it hard to believe that after 9/11 the terrorists considered their job over, packed up and went home.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join