Libertarian as US President?

[Tarheeler]

Ron Paul supports states' rights when it comes to abortion, from what I understand. Paul is a better candidate in my opinion - and when it comes to my opinion, you get what you pay for.

And that is one of the areas I strongly disagree with him; I think that any and all rights should fall under federal protection and they shouldn't vary from state to state.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that is one of the areas I strongly disagree with him; I think that any and all rights should fall under federal protection and they shouldn't vary from state to state.

I bet Paul agrees with you that the Incorporation Doctrine requires that the states honor constitutional rights.
But there are differing opinions about some rights which aren't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Tarheeler]

I bet Paul agrees with you that the Incorporation Doctrine that the states honor constitutional rights.
But there are differing opinions about some rights which aren't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

True, but the Constitution was never meant to be all inclusive of personal rights and freedoms; the 9th amendment is pretty clear in this area. And to argue that a right should not be federally protected because it is not enumerated is, at least to me, terribly shortsighted.

Particularly for someone who once ran for president on the Libertarian ticket.

 

[Revoltingest]

True, but the Constitution was never meant to be all inclusive of personal rights and freedoms; the 9th amendment is pretty clear in this area. And to argue that a right should not be federally protected because it is not enumerated is, at least to me, terribly shortsighted.

There will be argument about what rights shall exist despite their not being enumerated.
I prefer different reasoning for abortion rights than that in Roe v Wade, but looking at
the entire candidate, I still prefer Paul to his competition.

 

[TheKnight]

My two cents, Gary Johnson should drop out and support Ron Paul. Realistically, Johnson can't win. If Paul gets the nomination then he's got a shot beating Obama.

Department of Education.

Why? Because the DoE does its job so well?

True, but the Constitution was never meant to be all inclusive of personal rights and freedoms; the 9th amendment is pretty clear in this area. And to argue that a right should not be federally protected because it is not enumerated is, at least to me, terribly shortsighted.

Keeping it out of the federal arena means that people will be able to make decisions concerning certain non-enumerated rights at a more local level. When you have 300 million people you can't expect us to all agree on everything. That being said, keeping it at a state level allows for there to be at least different options. That way if you are not a fan of a certain state's policies then you are free to move to another etc etc. Plus, the individuals opportunity to make significant changes is much greater at the state level than at the federal level. The federal level means that it will become too generalized to be a one size fits all policy.

 

[Tarheeler]

There will be argument about what rights shall exist despite their not being enumerated.
I prefer different reasoning for abortion rights than that in Roe v Wade, but looking at
the entire candidate, I still prefer Paul to his competition.

I can understand that. But like I said earlier, this is only one area that I disagree with Paul. He just isn't a match for me, ideologically or pragmatically speaking.

 

[TheKnight]

I can understand that. But like I said earlier, this is only one area that I disagree with Paul. He just isn't a match for me, ideologically or pragmatically speaking.

Even so, you would vote for someone else? Or not vote at all instead of voting for Paul?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From The Forward:

With support for Rep. Ron Paul growing in the early caucus state of Iowa, a new report is once again calling attention to Paul’s connection to a newsletter that referred to Israel an “aggressive, national socialist state,” and suggested that the Mossad was responsible for the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

James Kirchick, writing in The Weekly Standard, reports on a defunct newsletter bearing the Texas congressman and presidential candidate’s name — a publication whose racist, homophobic and anti-Israel content Paul has disavowed, but one that reportedly earned him millions of dollars.

The newsletter, alternately titled Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, hailed a “coming race war,” called Martin Luther King Jr. “the world-class philanderer,” and stated that AIDS patients should be barred from eating in restaurants, according to Kirchick’s piece. The article relies heavily on a 2008 New Republic piece also written by Kirchick.

The New York Times quotes Paul’s deputy campaign manager as saying that the candidate “did not write, edit or authorize” the pieces in these namesake publications.

 

[Tarheeler]

Keeping it out of the federal arena means that people will be able to make decisions concerning certain non-enumerated rights at a more local level. When you have 300 million people you can't expect us to all agree on everything. That being said, keeping it at a state level allows for there to be at least different options. That way if you are not a fan of a certain state's policies then you are free to move to another etc etc. Plus, the individuals opportunity to make significant changes is much greater at the state level than at the federal level. The federal level means that it will become too generalized to be a one size fits all policy.

And that is where we disagree.

I don't think that our rights, even non-enumerated ones, should ever be subjected to local decisions. One of the few functions libertarians see the government having is the protection of rights, and the Constitution places that in federal jurisdiction.

There are many things that I do see as state issues, and the reasons you give are as valid as any other.

But the protection of our rights and freedoms aren't among them; if Americans have the right on one area of the country, then they should have the same right an all areas of the country. If someone disagree with ti, then they shouldn't exercise that right.

Even so, you would vote for someone else? Or not vote at all instead of voting for Paul?

Vote for someone else, of course.

As I said earlier, this is only one area I disagree with him. And, not only do I disagree with him on ideological grounds, but I think that if he is elected, one of two things must happen. Paul will never be able to achieve his agenda, so either (1) he will be forced to compromise and move towards the center, like most other presidents, or (2) he will stick to guns and effectively stop the government from functioning.

 

[TheKnight]

And that is where we disagree.

I don't think that our rights, even non-enumerated ones, should ever be subjected to local decisions. One of the few functions libertarians see the government having is the protection of rights, and the Constitution places that in federal jurisdiction.

There are many things that I do see as state issues, and the reasons you give are as valid as any other.

But the protection of our rights and freedoms aren't among them; if Americans have the right on one area of the country, then they should have the same right an all areas of the country. If someone disagree with ti, then they shouldn't exercise that right.

I think the perfect example is in the case of privacy. Suppose the people of a certain area are willing to allow law enforcement to monitor them in certain ways that people in another area are unwilling to allow. By leaving that sort of thing to the states, each state can determine, through its people, which it would rather have. To believe certain things should be federally protected is to believe that the same things are important to everyone. It's to be nobly intolerant. Whereas if you accept that certain things should be federally protected (like those things enumerated in the Constitution) and other things can be left up to the people of certain areas, then you allow for a system wherein people are able to make decisions for themselves.

Also, by federalizing certain things, not only do you make a pattern of total government control (in which case I don't see why you would have separate states at all), you also make the options much less. A system where states are allowed more flexibility regarding certain issues is a system where people have a better chance to opt-out of one system for another.

Suppose you disagree with something, it is likely much easier to move from one state to another than for you to move from one country to another.

It's a nice idea to have everything federally protected. But we protect things that are important to us and not everyone sees the same things as being important.

Vote for someone else, of course.

As I said earlier, this is only one area I disagree with him. And, not only do I disagree with him on ideological grounds, but I think that if he is elected, one of two things must happen. Paul will never be able to achieve his agenda, so either (1) he will be forced to compromise and move towards the center, like most other presidents, or (2) he will stick to guns and effectively stop the government from functioning.

Your in a car and you have a destination that you must reach in a timely manner. Would you prefer the driver who may alter the cars motion or direction to avoid an accident? Or would you prefer the driver who will speed steadily into an accident?

I recently debated this with a friend of mine and I think it's clear that if Ron Paul is elected president he will not act beyond his Constitutionally given powers. That means that not matter what he does he cannot stop the government from functioning. He can get in the way, but he can't stop it. There are three branches of government. For the entire thing to fail would be the result of inaction or improper action on the part of all three branches together. To blame the lack of fuctionality on one branch or even one person is just ridiculous. It is to say "my politicians (Congressman etc) were doing there jobs when your politician (Paul as president) stopped the whole thing from functioning."

Let's be realistic, he wants to cut the budget. Unfortunately that job falls entirely to Congress. He would bring home our troops. Would that stop us from functioning? I doubt it. He would likely veto legislation that he disagreed with. Does that mean things stop functioning?

No. You see when the president vetoes a bill, it goes back to Congress for vote. If 2/3 agree it should pass, then it will. Surely you don't think that such a process would result in the completely cessation of our government's functioning do you? After all, it is what the founders implemented and it seems to work out well when it is used.

What else could the president possibly do, Constitutionally, that could stop the government from functioning? The answer to that is absolutely nothing.

 

[Tarheeler]

Like I said, we disagree.