Libertarian Ideas Are Unreasonable (ref: Ron Paul)

The Daily Campus ^ | September 11, 2007 | Brandon Nadeau

[Designer]

"Don’t you like the picture of Ron Paul with a pancake on his head?"

Why, yes, DugwayDuke, as a matter of fact, it struck me as rather witty in a way. Furthermore, I am envious of folks with computer skills, having never learned photoshop myself.

Also, speaking for myself, I try always to keep things in proper perspective regarding politics and political candidates.

And I don't give a damn about your "sensitivity".

(that's a laugh line for those of you in Rio Linda)

[pianomikey]

“In fact, Congressman Paul did that at the very beginning. “

Yes, but he isn’t RUNNING on that promise. He’s not for the war, he’s apparently not for any war unless it’s fought on our own soil. I think that’s incompatible with conservative ideals, like a strong offense helps a strong defense. “Peace through strength” involves projecting overwhelming power against those who would harm you.

In other words, Paul has no concept of American Exceptionalism.

[Durus]

Then change the constitution to give government control of education because despite their control their is no constitutional authority.

[ejonesie22]

That may have to happen, or not.

But the problem still remains, long term we could end up right back in the same mess 50-100 years from now, maybe sooner.

As a conservative I want to fix things for good by being reasonable and open to where we are now and where we are going, not just to where we have been.

[Christopher Lincoln]

The problem is that the money you paid for Medicare (and Social Security) is long since spent and gone.

[Durus]

If by being reasonable and open you mean having to ignore the blatant usurpation's of power by the federal government then I don’t see how you can claim to be conservative. One would think that the entire purpose of the conservative movement was to conserve the constitution. If you are willing to give up constitutional procedure for social engineering, it being either “right” or “left” then I don’t see how you can lay claim to the title of Conservative. In fact I think people that ignore constitutional principle to further their agenda, no matter what their agenda, are the most dangerous foes of the USA.

[ejonesie22]

That is your perspective. Mine differs.

We can go back and forth all day long. I know the basis of your point, and nothing else will matter to you. Time will tell which approach will prove to be the best.

[Durus]

Certainly our perspectives differ. Reasonable people can have reasonable differences and still find some common ground. Out of curiosity I’m curious as to what you base your perspective on. I do my best to base my political beliefs on the constitution. Where do yours stem from?

[ejonesie22]

That, as well as history and the world out side of my little corner of it...

[Durus]

So what, based on history and the constitution, makes you think that it wise to give Federal government control of education, as opposed to the state or locality that is.

[ejonesie22]

You only seem to hear what you want to hear it seems...

So once again....

Control no, administering a national guideline and assuring no state fails it’s people, yes.

History proved that need right here in Mississippi when the state government itself denied the right of education to citizens based on race. It took the Feds to correct that.

Do you think the denying a specific group of individuals there eduction helps them in preserving their right to happiness? Isn’t that part of the Declaration of Independence, isn't the Constitution designed to protect those those rights. Or is it ok to treat citizens as you please based on race or religion and the like, as long as the state does it.

What do we do when the state fails the people. Tell them tough shit, take it up with your state?

The nation does not operate in a vacuum. Whatever the current state of any given government entity is now, for the most part many were created to address a concern that good people had for their fellow citizens. Those concerns will not dissipate simply because we say they should.

If there is a need to make modification to the Constitution, so be it, that is why the founders created the amendment process, but don't think that change is not needed or we can wholesale reverse everything that has happened since 1791. I whole heartily agree and have said so numerous time that the government is way to big and too inefficient, but there are certain things that modern America needs that is best done at a national level. If that was not true, we would have no need to have this conversation to begin with.

[Durus]

I only hear facts and reason. One of those pesky facts is that if the Federal government can require and state school system to pass it's guidelines then it is defacto in charge of education...even more so if it dispenses federal education dollars (or highway funds etc.) based on meeting those requirements.

Discrimination in Mississippi isn't a matter of education but discrimination. The federal government doesn't have to control education to control discrimination. The bill of rights applies to the state via the 14th amendment but infers no powers to the federal government other those that are "necessary and proper". Control of education is not necessary and it certainly isn't proper.

People do not have the constitutional right to happiness and I have trouble believing any reasonable person could honestly suggest that they do. I have heard liberals suggest such things of course. What we do (or are supposed to have) have is a Government of enumerated and limited powers so that individuals have the liberty to make themselves happy.

I don't exactly know what you mean when you say "the state fails the people" and based on earlier statements that could mean anything from not paying for their medicine to not providing enough "free" somethings. Certainly if a state isn't protecting a citizens rights then there is a place there for the Federal government to do so. Part of those rights are those included in the 9th and 10th amendments.

Whatever the current state of any given government entity is now, for the most part many were created to address a concern that good people had for their fellow citizens. Those concerns will not dissipate simply because we say they should.

There are people concerned with global warming, arctic drilling, three toed sloth habitats, alien abductions, and the "truth" about 911. Not all concerns are valid and certainly not all of them have a government solution. Only because government usurped so much power do people actually think to go there with such concerns.

If there is a need to make modification to the Constitution, so be it, that is why the founders created the amendment process, but don't think that change is not needed or we can wholesale reverse everything that has happened since 1791.

So you really do think that we have a living constitution and that wide sweeping powers can be given to government without any constitutional authority. Whatever system of government that may be it is no longer a constitutional republic and I don't think you have really thought about what that means. I would much rather be faced with having to go through the monumental effort of passing a constitutional amendment to do something important then be faced with the prospect of eventual tyranny. Those are the only two valid choices.

[ejonesie22]

The Department of Ed administered compliance in Mississippi schools due to segregation. That was their job. In that particular case it was a good thing. That is also a case of the state government failing citizens. I would despute the "control' piece again, I am not saying that the fed dictates everything, but certain educational standards that are good for competing in the 21st century should be met for all citizens. Whether that comes in the form of an agreement between the states, a Federal program or agency is irrelevant.

As usual with absolutist you swing from black to white, when real life is gray. That is not a conservative or liberal issue, that is fact.

Are certain abuses occurring in our government, certainly, and at this time it is quite clear that the bad is out weighing the good. Does that mean that we then go through and chunk everything wholesale? No, that would be irresponsible and to be honest if done too rapidly disastrous.

As far as what are viable concerns, the founders allowed for a Republic so decisions could be made about what was important at any given time. Otherwise they would have presented a static document and left no legislative process, since everything would have been finished in 1791. That was not the case was it.

The things the Fed does well, like the CDC, FAA and such need to be left, albeit in a form that performs the need functions only and adds benefit to our nation.

Now my question, because I always find this interesting. Do you dismiss the Declaration of Independence. It is in essence the lead in to the Constitution, stating those rights that later where defended in the Constitution itself. The right to the pursuit of happiness is in there. No where did I say that any one had a right to happiness, but nothing should impede them from the pursuit. You are knowledgeable on such things, certainly you know the difference between guaranteeing happiness and safe guarding the right to at least have a shot at it

The Constitution is the most important of out legal documents, but it does not stand alone. It has stood the test of time because it does interact with us, and our history. While I believe the whole living Constitution meme as it is used today is in error, it is indeed a document the founders created to live with us and guide us for all time. If that is not the essence of living, I don't know what is, and I find it insulting to great men to think otherwise. They maybe dead, but their work lives on. I would think given your position on the importance of returning to the Constitution you would agree, yes?