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.

 

RONY 2012

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkinin

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Darkinin
 


So you're seriously going to pretend all market participants act rationally, really? Comon', you can't be that delusional!


Not everyone in the world will act in an intelligent way. However, they will naturally be punished for their poor deeds. Besides, as I pointed out in my original response, the states themselves can still legislate on matters that aren't specifically prohibited to them, or exclusively given to the Congress.

Also, just so everyone knows, calling another person, or group of persons, "delusional" or "fanatical" doesn't a good argument make.
edit on 25-5-2012 by Darkinin because: (no reason given)


I take it you never studied economics, right. If you had, you'd know that in the real world (as opposed to theory), free market would lead to a few clever people (yes, they're a minority) exploiting a larger (less clever/educated) majority. It's already happening, and a free market would make it even easier for them. Why do you think "corporations are people my friend" Romney is so in favor of "free market"? There's a VERY good reason why not a single country in the world has a free market.

Under a free market, the US car industry would be dead, women would earn drastically less than now, you would pay significantly more for fuel (which is the reason free market advocates and oil speculators like the Koch brothers love the idea of a free market), the US farming industry would be dead, and pretty much all manufacturing in the US would be dead or salaries would drop to China levels.




posted on May, 26 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Also theoretically under this Ron Paul system of states legislating everything, a state could theoretically state the following:

We are passing a law that makes a vote from (group X) to be worth 1/2 a vote while (Group Y) enjoys full vote. Also We are going to attach to this law a rider stating that if your child is a special needs child they need not go to school as it's now banned.

Right now states can't do something like this.. IN fact they would lose all Federal Funding if they tried it..... something most states would rather die than do... But your candidate opposes the Federal Protections that are in place to prevent states from doing that (I can see a couple of southern states just itching to try it too)

According to you, those protections are unconstitutional to have in place... Well isn't it unconstitutional to discriminate against one party over another? Wait no it's not.. sorry, we can all be bigots and racists under Ron Paul.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 



Please, don't use straw man arguments, it doesn't do any good for your argument.

The people are protected in their right to vote by the Constitution, so obviously any such law would be struck down by the courts. Such "protections" against such state legislation is completely unnecessary, as the people are clearly granted the right to a vote under the Constitution.



new topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join