ParanoiA

Libertarianism is not a knee-jerk response. It also is not a single issue ideology, but rather a single themed ideology - freedom and liberty. You can disagree with the amount of freedom and liberty being advocated, but to assume that a shift of focus from solving problems using the government to solving problems using the free market of persuasion is simplistic and shallow then you're being...well simplistic and shallow. Please support the notion that government and legislation should be the playing field for civil engineering. I don't believe it should be, and I don't believe it was intended to be. In terms of reality, how about ethics and morality? How can I support the status quo when I believe the status quo to be wrong - even it means it's not realistic to expect a change, I have an ethical inclination - if not responsibility - to advocate that change.

You're suggesting a link between inferior intelligence and religious belief, so either you have one hell of a supporting argument or that's prejudiced opinion - either way an offensive statement. Didn't the attempt at that with race teach you something? I don't know that it does and it's irrelevent to my objection to your statement to begin with. My problem was the inherent and apparently transparent, prejudice in your statement about religion and inferior intelligence. I totally agree. So support your argument about intelligence and religion.

This validates woelen's sentiments.

Sounds like a british rock band...

Sounds right to me. The first analogy that comes to mind is amoral = not moral, as opposed to anti-moral.

Well, I meant to put it more like Belief = God = No. Meaning, belief that god = no. Nothing revolutionary here, just trying to avoid using any terminology.

Belief = God = No. This person believes there is no god; they believe in the lack of a god. Requires faith. Belief = God = Yes. This person believes there is a god; they obviously do not believe in the lack of a god. Also requires faith. Belief = God = I don't know. This person does not believe in god; they are not in a present state of belief that god = Yes. They also do not believe in the lack of a god; they are not in a present state of belief that god = No. Fact is, some people don't want to admit the 3rd, non-religio scenario and continue to push the "not belief = belief" bit. My answer is I don't freaking know if god exists or not, so like everything I can't verify it goes in the "I don't know" bin. There has to be a word for this, that everyone can agree on, rather than getting stuck in these semantics loops.

But in a federation both the states and the central government share power. So how do you advocate state power on certain issues without coming off as a confederate? Especially considering that power is never given up - the government never seems to shrink any and it's always incremental. So, do you think you could recognize and realize when your central government gains a disproportionate amount of control? Also, consider the fuction of the central government versus state government. The central government basically gaurantees a base line set of rights that all states must follow. Seems to me, most of the activity in politics should really be happening at the state level. Federal government shouldn't really have that much going on with domestic issues, just ensuring that the constitution is respected among the states. My opinion of course, but it makes more sense to me anyway. Seems like we're so conditioned to meddling at the federal level we can't think otherwise. Also, Dr. Paul doesn't advocate isolationism. He advocates non-military intervention. Funny how your interpretation suggests that the only valid form of interface between governments is through their militaries - alliances and intervention. Spreading freedom and democracy is strongly encouraged - but not by military means. Why is that so out-of-the-question? Or more importantly, why is that considered isolationism? I have had the same impression on previous debates. The democrat debates are more interesting.

Well, but how easy is it to gather the data and verify this question? Personally, I doubt the patriot act has made that much of an impact - sudden shift of focus and manpower notwithstanding. But how do you prove it?

Well, I just thought that was agentchange and I. We've been poking at each other for some time now on this Constitution thing...don't let us distract ya'll. Fact is, I don't really know. That's why I haven't answered iNow's question.

I don't believe they would fix it by ignoring the constitution or its principles - it's arguably at its most important during times of crisis. Maybe this country really isn't for you. Seriously. We are a country of laws who's representatives are ever changing that depend on documentation and rigid aherence to this documentation in order to establish and maintain legitimacy. If you ever circumvent that document, then the document is worthless - which means you have no law and no order. Why would I respect that document and not rob and kill you when you won't respect that document and not invade my privacy? Do you understand yet that we respect these pieces of paper because of the idea that they represent - not because some old geezers were super duper smart?

I realize the point you're making here, but in this case, it actually does make a bit of sense. I don't know anyone actually bent out of shape about the Patriot Act - they don't like it and are formally against it but they don't seem too worried about it either. Perhaps because political groups and associates are making it a big deal - nonetheless, for candidates it seems to be more of a "checklist" item to add to their platform.

What led us to these circumstances is rolling our military might all over the world and making excuses to jump in every conflict we can get something out of. If we would just trade freely and stay out of other country's political affairs and quit obligating our countrymen to serve our morality set on foreign soil we would be richer, stronger, safer and immitated. Our borders could be lined with the billions of tons of military machinery and manpower used in Iraq. We could have the safest "open" border in the entire freaking world for half the cost if we would quit maintaining our global empire. But, that's more of that "old school" logic.

I'm glad you included this part because some of us have tried to be respectful of theism, yet consistent that science simply has an untestable hypothesis concerning god. I don't have any history with you, I'm kinda new, but I have read some of your posts in other sections and really look forward to you sticking around. Yeah, I looked it up and it has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. I apologize, that was stupid. I thought there was a term for an untestable hypothesis - even if it was untestable due to technical limitations which could plausibly be available in the potentially infinite future. Whatever that is, that's what I'm talking about. Lucaspa's bit on this is great, I advise anyone to look up one of those threads.

What? Nonsense. Them there laws was made long before we had horseless carriages and electronic gizmos....everything is completely different in our brand new dynamically explosive world we live in... How could old fashioned ideas like personal responsibility, live and let live and power to the people possibly work nowadays, with all this tech and complex issues like terrorism??? The constitution was written during a time of simplicity. When stuff was really easy to figure out - good and evil, right and wrong, black hat / white hat. Those old geezers didn't have a clue what kind of craziness WE would have to deal with.

So it's the intellectual equivalent of a spelling error. Noted. No one will be safe until there's action news on action news. You mean like how the government investigates murder without "human interface regulations" and committees? Why not? The rules of the land apply to all, business and private. Enforcement includes investigation and prosecution - neither of which need yet another bureaucratic subset of laws and requirements in order to exercise.

I think this sums it up nicely.... I can handle arguing with an elitist, but I prefer them to at least be honest about their self inflation. From what I've seen, our litigatory culture has little problem keeping companies focused on prevention. Not to mention, companies will focus on whatever the consumer is focused on. The day after the atkinson diet was featured on Oprah, I saw carb counts on the menus of all my favorite restaraunts - even fast food for crying out loud. If safety is everyone's concern, companies will go out of their way to kiss our ass and show off how safe they are, making marketing claims that bind them to law. (Not to mention Action news and investigative journalism will keep them in check.. ) Why can't the government actively investigate these matters? Why does there have to be a special set of laws to get the government's help in ensuring the legitimacy of business?

Glad you got my point. It's not legal to lie about the product you're selling. Let's lay off the drama, you're not saving anyone's life in a chat forum... And being emotionally invested to the point you utilize ad hom as a discussion tactic is childish and beneath the intellect of everyone else here. Priceless. So, you do understand Dr. Paul's pro-life point of view after all. That protecting life is part of protecting liberty. You can go ahead and add wholesale bias to your analysis here since you continue to equate consequence with intent with respect to Paul's positions. You might as well say that Dr. Paul is for racism by his advocating my personal right to allow or refuse anyone I want in my home - including if it's based on their race. Clearly you fear true freedom. Yes, socialist governments have their advantages and disadvantages, as do capitalist federations - and we here in the united states have chosen capitalism and it's consequences. It won't always outperform socialist governments, but it is the preferred compliment to a free republic.

Glad you're finally on board. Might be a bit zealous, though. So what is in the constitution that would make it ok for a company to distribute toothpaste with radium in it? Why can't that company be sued? Incidentally, I'm not against government regulations as a concept, just that we go incredibly overboard and influence markets way, way too much. Ron Paul can be against the FDA all he wants, it isn't going away and I don't want it to either. I don't see where anyone has the right to sell you poison without your knowledge, no. However, they should have the right to sell you poison. That is absolutely out line and exposes your overly emotional investment in what should be a critically thoughtful, civil discussion. That's an opinion based on consequence, a valid one too, but I believe Dr. Paul's position is based on the principle of freedom from government interference. That's what I mean by misrepresentation, albeit due, perhaps to misinterpretation. That's actually the first time I heard of him' date=' about a year ago, he stated in an interview on the matter that the constitution gaurantees [b']life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness. Clearly he believes the fetus is a citizen (which isn't consistent with his opposal to birth-right citizenship concerning immigration btw) and is enforcing its right to life - just like he'd enforce yours. I don't agree, but it's a valid point. No, he supports state's rights because we have an imbalance of power in this federation - with the federal government taking a disproportionate amount of control. Some of us believe that there would be more harmony if there were more diversity throughout the various states. Not nearly as effectively, nor long lasting. Nevertheless, I don't see how you can defend either one then.

As long as you're going to pretend that abortion really isn't a controversial issue that has the country divided between personal liberty / right to commit murder - then yes, your position will continue to lead you to centralized, non-federal government. The fact is, that the constitution is quite clear on personal liberty - there are no issues there. No state can override these liberties. The issue is how abortion is to be "interpreted" so we therefore know how to apply the principles of the constitution to it - we don't agree on that and haven't agreed on that for decades. And I refuse to dismiss those who disagree with me that abortion is a right and instead see it as murder. I'm glad they are fighting for what they believe in - between the two sides, the discussion continues and perhaps one day we'll all agree. This is not an arbitrary geographic collection of weirdos living in Idaho....this is half the freaking country.

Mixed results? Lack of data collection? Please. Wait times don't even come up in healthcare discussions until you start comparing with centralized, socialized medicine. How is it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions about health care just because you remove the government manacles that create the monopoly on drugs? Supporting alternative medicine against the big bad FDA is a statement about freedom of choice - no matter how stupid you think the choice is. Freedom is a funny thing. To really enjoy its full function you have to stop worrying about how stupid you think everyone else is and how smart you think you are and using that to justify dictating your morality code onto them by force - using legislation. That's what religio-fanatics do. Instead, the price of freedom is allowing people to do stupid things and utilizing the power of persuasion and personal responsibility. You misrepresent Paul's ideas because you judge his positions on face value rather than their principle. Just consider the principle of freedom and liberty and you'll see it reflected in his individual positions while those who oppose him spin those positions. There's always some kind of consequence and all you're really doing is pointing to that consequence and pretending as if that is his purpose. Paul's purpose is not to keep you from making informed decisions and prop up an alternative medicine market - his purpose is to stop government interference; that it is wrong for the federal government to dictate what I choose to ingest. Like marijuana, among others. And that government regulation enables and secures monopolies.

Yes. Jefferson also agreed with state power. This decision is upon recognition that while you see it as an infringement on personal rights, someone else sees it as preventing murder. Rather than force the hand of a major minority at the federal level, Dr. Paul seems to respect your local government - your state government - and prefers it be settled there. A consistent position for a proponent of federation over centralized government. Your argument seems to imply that every referral to state power is a dismissal of personal liberty. I see no issue with this statement. The Founders' political views aren't the same as the Framers' political document. Yes, the founding fathers were quite religious, but did not want to see the government establish and endorse any particular religion. Religion was also a source of morality code, as atheism wasn't nearly as strong as it is today. Religion mingling with government was somewhat a "given". I wish I had more time. Good discussion though. I'm going to read up on HR180 as well.

Actually, those very regulations are responsible for piling up bodies, and I have yet to see any "correction". Here's where it comes from - the 169 billion dollar hidden tax. Not that there shouldn't be any regulation, but to assume more is better and is free from corruption would be false. Our healthcare system is a joke - big business for corporate america and the united states federal government. They are making out like bandits at the people's expense.