Posted on 11/27/2001 6:58:59 AM PST by Zviadist
You are being extremely disengenuous. Answer the question. You asserted that national soverignty in and of itself is statist. Is that your final answer?
You are totally wrong in your perception of how self sufficient you are. It also sounds like you claim to have run over someone which I think is pure BS.
That is exactly what I am doing. I am saying that it doesn't make any difference what Ron Paul's message is because no one is going to listen to him. He is the little boy who cried "wolf" too many times.
By the way, I'm not attempting to attack the message because I didn't even read it. Libertarian theology gets very boring very fast.
BTW, I am familiar with Ron Paul, having spoken with him a number of times over the past thirty years. His reputation for supporting farm welfare programs is well known in his rural district. I guess he just forgets to mention that in his appeals to libertarians.
The truly scary part is that this is happening at the same time as the economy is headed toward some of the most troubling times since the Great Depression. A police state and extreme economic hardship seem to be converging in the near future. I am expecting much pain in the next several years.
Not being "respectful of the rights of American citizens" leads to our rightful punishment of them. Not being representative of Afghani citizens is only an excuse to further justify whatever else we might want to do. We don't mess with 90% of the countries in the world whose governments fail to represent their ciizens, thank goodness.
The feds were not interested. The local police would come around and try scaring the young punks, but if there were any arrests the neighborhood didn't notice. Then this same nephew had to sell more to support his own use. He stole things from his house. Some of his friends would steal real nice things like TVs, stereos and the like and pay for their drugs from him in that way. Sister-in-law and father-in-law all saying the boy was a good kid and that he just has really nice friends.
It has been three years now. The punks no longer come to the neighborhood because they got tired of deflated and slashed tires courtesy of neighborhood watch. Funny thing, the police would not help them, just like they never helped us. They were real good at reports and telling us to call again, but that is about it. My nephew still can't fully shake association with the punks. He has never done jail time. The police have confiscated things from him that they deny later of knowing a thing about. He did serve a house arrest for "just being in the car mom, honest I did not break into the store and steal anything". He has finally consented to joining the California Conservation Corps to try to shake his relationship with his drug pushing punks.
One of the drug pushers is the son of a local police officer. He has a good supply line and both he and his father have never served any jail time for their crimminal behaviors. But I am certain that some drugs were removed by law enforcement somewhere, those cars require constant maintenance.
I strongly disagree. A common defense, the rule of law, and enforcement of the right of contract are national issues and identify "empire". National sovereignty and respect of the sovereignty of other nations or cultures is fundamentally libertarian. In Libertarian Government, the strength of the USA "empire" is our commerce in cooperation with private citizens in other governments. Empire is also defined by the strength of your nation to defend itself against all enemies foreign and domestic. Such defense is the primary, if not only, federal commission.
An honest answer would have to take into account the meaning of national sovereignty, but if you only want a short answer then yes, national sovereignty is of itself a statist construct.
I invited you to this thread twice. Maybe three is the charm: Defense of Liberty. National Self-Determination: An International Political Lie
If the Afghani government governed with consent of its population and refused to honor our request to extradite bin Laden then our war will be on the Afghani people as well as on Afghani government, but other than the absence of rations dropped from B52's there'd be very little practical difference, correct.
Why? I agree with the rest of your post, but this puzzles me. If individual rights of an American citizen are violated under jurisdiction of another government, how does it change the obligation of American government to protect American citizen? Reciprocally, if rights of an Afghani citizen are violated on American soil would America prevent anyone from defending his rights because of the sovereignty of American soil?
Respect for national sovereignty, to a libertarian, means respect for local law. But rights are universal and rights trump laws. Hence, defence of rights trumps national borders.
Let me invite you, as I jst did Demidog, to this thread that is devoted to this difficult issue: Defense of Liberty. National Self-Determination: An International Political Lie.
The call for any federal government is to defend it's own citizens against tyranny of an individual, corporation, or national government or governments. Since all power is granted to government by the governed, in a libertarian model, self-determination requires "empire" like qualities in a federal government to assure protection of individuals. I see no dilema.
Tax cuts equal welfare? You seriously believe this?
New Amsterdam: Tot Siens!
If he seems extremist in his defense of the Constitution we BOTH hold dear, perhaps it's because of the men you are comparing him to. Next to the marshmallow moderates ANYONE with principles would look extreme.
If individual rights are respected and sovereignty is only used to draw lines between jurisdictions for statutory law, then of course, it is a benign thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.