reply to post by jjf3rd77
1. We make laws that are outside the realm of the constitution.
The states may make as many laws as they wish, provided they do not attempt to make laws that change any of the Constitution. The federal government
making any laws that are outside of what is listed withint he Constitution is illegal.
Just because they passed them and nobody has yet to complain and get them struck down, doesn't make them any more lawful.
Remember that any power not afforded to the Federal Government is left to the states.
2. I don't think anybody "agrees" with the taxes that their state and government makes them pay but they still do it! It's because not
following the law has consequences and that consequence is jail time. Nobody wants that so they obey the law even if they don't like it! No matter how
legal and constitutional it may be.
Everybody "agrees" to pay tax in order to maintain the Union. If the government is for the people by the people then they must contribute to the
government's ability to operate. Problem is the government has started spending that money in ways they should not.
There is a difference between lawful and legal. Most laws are "legal" but they are un-lawful in the context of actual Constitutional law. My answer
for #1 still applies, just because the law is there, does not make it lawful.
Problem you have is that you don't understand your judicial & legislative systems and how they are suppose to work.
Nor do you seem to know about lawful vs legal. These are things that are VERY important if you are going to attempt to argue against libertarians.
3. Libertarians have the Libertarian Party...Not sure what you mean by putting "political" in quotes like that. Use some context next time.
That party was created as a means to combat the 1 party mentality of the GOP and the DNC. It basically ammounts to nothing considering it plays
within the same corrupt realm as the two de-facto parties. It is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
There should be no political parties, only independants, that vote basd on the wants and needs of their constituency, not their friends.
4. But we were still social conservatives. Something Ron Paul is not!
You are not a social conservative. I'm sorry but if you believe that laws should be passed to prevent people from doing things other than violence,
theft or mis-guidance ( as in lying in your contracts) then you are not a conservative.
Paul believes abortion is wrong,but doesn't believe the Government has the right to tell you not to get one.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in same sex marriage, however he does believe and support any contracts of voluntary association with the state. Meaning he
doesn't believe in it, but same sex couples should be afforded the same rights if they choose to want them.
Your idea of attempting to legislate people's lives, is actually a liberal tenant. Conservatives believe in LIMITING the governments power over you
in ALL aspects of life, social, economic etc..
Most self proclaimed conservatives are just dressed up liberals when you actually look and investigate their ideology.
6. Why? I know where I stand on the issues. I'm just stating my opinion, but because it's against libertarians it is wrong?
Here's the problem, you have opinions, yet you claim them as facts. This is biased and intellectually dishonest.
You can't go around acusing a group of spreading propaganda and attacking anybody who doesn't agree with them, or their views and then do the same.
You aren't wrong for not agreeing with libertarians, you're wrong for claiming that your ideas and opinions are "better" than there's, without
providing any correlating data proving it.
edit on 8/6/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)