The distinction on which I’m about to elaborate seems to map fairly well into a split between so-called “right-libertarians” and “left-libertarians”. When Ron Paul says “government is not the answer,” he is actually saying something very different from what I (and, I take it, many left-libertarians) mean by this phrase. When Paul runs for president on the banner that “government is not the answer,” this implicitly assumes that the solution is government: i.e. the answer to the problem is to get a libertarian messiah into a position of power and wait for him to lead us with top-down solutions. What I want to say is that this is just a non-starter. This completely corrupt government cannot be reformed* with* government and top-down solutions.
When “left-libertarians” say “government is not the answer,” it is the rejection of top-down solutions and libertarian messiahs.
I think that when he says, “government is not the answer” he means that the majority assumes that this is the answer. He is pointing out that it doesn’t have to be. I do agree though that change will not come from top down solutions. One does not join the mafia hoping to change it into a charity. Government is just a mafia with a flag.At the very most the federal government was to provide for post roads, post office, make commerce regular between the states, To coin money, and provide for defense. All few other thing but the rest was to be up to the states. The federal government reallywas supposed to a non issue in Americans life. State and local government were what they were to be concerned about.
Could you be thinking of a Communist structure finally implemented the “right way”?
[/quote]I believe that would be the solution for anderson. I suspect he is not happy Obama does not go whole hog forcing the Marxist mantra.
For an anarchist, you sure do have a dewy-eyed notion of early U.S. politics. It’s really a tribute to just what extraordinary propagandists were the federalists that people are still to this day hoodwinked by this nonsense. The “Federalists” wanted (and won) a strong central government. But they faced a fiercely independent populace that was only barely on board with the revolution to begin with, and who were not at all inclined to give up their local autonomy to a distant authority. In order to get what they wanted, the Federalists did exactly what politicians do to this day: they lied, coerced, and made heavy use of Orwellian tactics (for instance, cynically appropriating the name “Federalists” for themselves, when they were, in fact, the actual “anti-federalists”). Because the Federalists had the backing of most of the wealthy special interests, they were able to completely out-maneuver their opponents politically. What they were actually after is quite clear from the private correspondence. For instance, according to Madison: “the national Government should be armed with positive and compleat [sic] authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing of the terms and forms of naturalization, etc. etc.”[SUP]1[/SUP]
And of course, the Constitution had bitter critics. Compare their concerns with the actual course of history. George Mason complained that the new constitution allowed the federal government unprecedented power to “grant monopolies in trade and commerce,” and to “extend their powers as far as they shall think proper”.[SUP]2[/SUP] Patrick Henry worried that, in the Federalist’s scheme of “energetic Government,” the people would “find two sets of tax-gatherers–the State and the Federal Sheriffs.” Out of this would come “such dreadful oppression, as the people cannot possibly bear: the Federal Sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses he pleases, and ruin you with impunity: For how are you to tie his hands? Have you sufficient decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions and fees?”[SUP]3[/SUP]
Another prescient critique appears in “Letters from the Federal Farmer” (1787). The Federalist’s plan “leaves the powers of government, and the representation of the people, so unnaturally divided between the general and state governments, that the operations of our system must be very uncertain,” and so leaving open the possibility for virtually any expansion (an expansion which started almost immediately, just as Hamilton intended). The Constitution does not aim at “the protection of property,” or “to preserve the rights of all orders of men,” but rather “for changes calculated to promote the interests of particular orders of men”. “The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics, under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government.” Through “abuse of power in the legislatures…aristocratical men with those very weapons, and those very means, with which, in great measure, they are rapidly effecting their favorite object. And should an oppressive government be the consequence of the proposed change, posterity may reproach not only a few overbearing unprincipled men, but those parties in the states which have misused their powers.” The Constitution creates “an unnatural separation of [essential] powers from the substantial representation of the people”: it creates “a new species of executive, a small senate, and a very small house of representatives. As many citizens will be more than three hundred miles from the seat of this government as will be nearer to it”. All in all, “the balance cannot possibly continue long; but the state governments must be annihilated, or continue to exist for no purpose…a mere shadow of power.”[SUP]4[/SUP]
[SUP]1 James Madison to George Washington (April 16, 1787)
2 Ralph Ketcham, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classic, 1986), p.175
3 ibid. 212-13
4 ibid. 257-68[/SUP]
I don’t support him because he has the false idea that America would be just fine, and we’d get along with everyone if we just stuck our heads in the sand and ignored the rest of the world.
It don’t work that way fella. Liberals have destroyed our ability to be self reliant, and we will not recover from that.
I do not see America recovering when 50% of the people don’t pay taxes. I don’t see it when every part of our morality has been shredded by morons who see things in the constitution that don’t exists, separation of church and state specifically. I don’t see it so long as liberals do everthing in their slothful electorate given power to take away from the people who support the sloths.
It’s hopeless ya’ll. At least I have the saving grace of living in the South. No matter what happens, I’ll still have my guns and fishing poles. My family will be fed.
Maybe, by the grace of the God that the liberals are trying to destroy, we’ll get out of this and America will flourish again. Until we produce more Reagans, I don’t see that happening. Ron Paul does not, under any stretch of the imagination, hold to Reagan’s example or ideals.
If you think for a second he does, you are lying to yourself.
Except he wants a strong military. That includes intelligence.
Why do you believe preemptive war makes us all get along, and that we can’t be aware of our surroundings in a defensive manner?
Ron Paul isn’t a Reagan. But they do share many ideas. Reagan had to(or chose to) compromise on many things, but you would find they are very similar, while also having differences. Listen to their speeches.
But maybe we don’t need “another Reagan”. After all, there won’t be another Reagan. He was great, not perfect. Maybe we need someone totally new. I want it to be Ron Paul. Not everyone agrees with him, but he is principled and honest. He wants government out of our lives at home and wants a strong defense.
If you could overlook his lack of offensive foreign policy while taking note of his plans for strong defense, you might find him more attractive. Because he has the best domestic policy by far.
[quote=“Bremen, post:7, topic:32146”]
Do you want a combination of church and state making laws for 300 million people?
[/quote]We’ve had laws based in Judeo-Christianity since the founding.
The constitution declares that there will be no state sponsored religion, meaning the gov’t can’t declare “X Worship” to be the one true religion of the nation. As in how England did with the Church of England. The founders were specifically addressing that situation.
[quote=“JStang, post:9, topic:32146”]
We’ve had laws based in Judeo-Christianity since the founding. The constitution declares that there will be no state sponsored religion, meaning the gov’t can’t declare “X Worship” to be the one true religion of the nation. As in how England did with the Church of England. The founders were specifically addressing that situation.
[/quote] How is this different From the idea of the separation of church and state?
There should be no decision to begin with. Just as with Gay Marriage, the gov’t has no right to tell a church, or a clergyman (Military Chaplains included) that they should marry gays.
At the same time, there is nothing in the constitution that says “God can never be mentioned in government. You can’t display the 10 commandments there! No, you can’t hang that picture of Jesus on your wall.” There is none of that. What that comes from is from liberals trying to destroy all reference to Christianity. They don’t complain about the Star of David, Muslim Prayer and other things. No, just anything to do with Christianity.
Genesis was a recording of even older oral traditions that are lost to antiquity. And there are alternative methods of writing (such as Egyptian hieroglyphs and and Chinese lettering) which are far older.