Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People caveat the NAP all the time to make exceptions and such (i.e. aggression is allowed under certain circumstances), but the wording of the NAP never changes. If the principal has to be constantly modified and altered to fit in what ever moral relativism they are arguing, its not a principal any more.
The wording of the first amendment has been the same for far longer but yet it's not the entire basis of the idea. You can still get arrested for your speech.
Quote:
A moral is not a moral if it's not absolute. You cant logically claim the moral high ground then trivialize this moral by making exceptions to the principal you value as tantamount. The NAP is/was established as a baseline for all decisions within a libertarian society. Except, its not a baseline because its always changing based on the circumstances and there are many times other moral imperatives out right trump it, as we seen in this thread where the need for justice would trump the NAP. The NAP is worded incredibly rigid and allows no flexibility, yet people defend it and trivialize in the same breath.
You are taking one section and forgetting the rest. It often happens. Most times Libertarians get confused with anarchist. You can't seem to understand that they are not pacifists.
Leave people alone. If one refuses, of course there are actions one can then take against those who refuse to abide by this idea.
His focus is easily distracted and he loses sight of goals to get bogged down is irrelevant side issues.
No evidence he can work with others and is like obama in that regard.
Just an impression.
Why would you want to work with someone that has a goal of achieving something completely against your core beliefs?
Should one against targeting American citizens for death without due process, compromise on that idea and say "O.K., we will accept it under these circumstances" or should one hold to the idea that it is wrong?
While I agree with much of what Ron Paul suggests I think one of the things that turns off older Americans is his constant, almost reflexive need to instantly blame the US for every international problem since the dawn of time. He constantly mentions "blowback", etc.... Of course it is true that we have made mistakes, but we aren't responsible for every international ill.
We get enough of that nonsense from the Left.
Apart from that I agree with probably 90% of whet he has to say. It's his delivery that turns a lot of people off.
You'll have to note where he has blamed the U.S. for every ill and then note where he was wrong for this to have any basis in fact.
At least we have tonight's debate to guide us toward the higher ground!
I'll be listening to Rand Paul a little more carefully, also for amusement of course.
I miss Obama already...
Rand has little in common with his dad here. His arguments boil down to "I am the true conservative". Most who would initially have supported him will quickly jump ship when they hear that stated.
Watch tonight and see how many times he says that. Unfortunately "conservatives" support many of the ideas that are not acceptable, like government spying on it's citizens.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,566 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Of course it means nothing specific. It's just a general idea. The government is too large and those who support a large government have to further and further erode into the rights of others to continue to expand that government.
Its all just generalizations, what you define as small government may indeed be considered big government to someone else.
My point however was that There are people who advocate for a government that would not actually function in reality.
for example, some people describe big government as simply having an income tax, so lets eliminate it in theory. Thats 42% of revenue. Doing that one thing is almost half the government revenue, whats your remedy ?
Where are you going to cut 1.3 trillion dollars ???
Its all just generalizations, what you define as small government may indeed be considered big government to someone else.
Indeed that is possible. But yes, that is my point. These are general idea's, not policy or law.
Quote:
My point however was that There are people who advocate for a government that would not actually function in reality.
And those who argue for a suffocating government. Neither are correct.
Quote:
for example, some people describe big government as simply having an income tax, so lets eliminate it in theory. Thats 42% of revenue. Doing that one thing is almost half the government revenue, whats your remedy ?
Most who argue that also argue a replacement.
Quote:
Where are you going to cut 1.3 trillion dollars ???
1. We have income taxes because Tariffs are so low, if you want to raise inport tariffs, we can like Donald Trump wants and pay an extra 70 dollars on your new TV,10 on your toaster, 20on the blender,100 on the stove or Fridge.
2. prostitution is not illegal on the federal level. It is up to the states to make it legal
3. Some Drugs,he was right there.
4. War is a state of being, not simply bombing a place. temporarily nationalizing industries, rationing resources, and so on. We havent been at war for decades.
.
1. The real solution is manufacturing. We should be building our own do dads and gadgets and exporting them. Americans will import another country's fecal matter just to flush it down an imported toilet.
2. Most things are not illegal on the federal level. Government has overstepped it's bounds - ignoring the Constitution - and passing bills that become law making them illegal. The robes don't do their jobs.
3. Drugs are different than they were just 50 years ago. Substances, herbs and supplements are age old and should be ours to do with as we want.
4. You backed up his position on war. War can only be declared by congress. We have been living with military conflicts which have escalated into wars rather than officially declared.
This is from the book 1984; I substituted USA for Oceania.
"The USA has been in a constant state of war – with whom it was at war is of neither importance nor consequence".
Ron Paul's "crazy" ideas about government (no income tax, legal prositution, legal drugs, formally declared wars, etc.) were the norm in this country for most of its existence. Why do people act like he's crazy?
You'll have to note where he has blamed the U.S. for every ill and then note where he was wrong for this to have any basis in fact.
You're kidding, right? RP blames the US for foreign issues as easily as he draws breath. You can start with 9/11... one of his faves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
