[tacticalogic]

In an analogy: Suppose I am a divorced parent. I might argue that under the law, my wife should not have been granted custody of my children. Fine. Does that mean that I also have to defend her against charges of neglect when the children have malnutrition, because the law states that she should not be the responsible person? Of course not! If the law were better applied, she wouldn’t have the responsibility, but as the law is applied, she has that responsibility, and I am obliged to do everything I can to make sure that the responsibility is fulfilled, even if the law says it’s not my responsibility.

That is a responsibility you have to your children. It is a valid analogy if you assume that the proper relationship between the federal government and the citizens is that the government treat them as children.

[dangus]

>> That is a responsibility you have to your children. It is a valid analogy if you assume that the proper relationship between the federal government and the citizens is that the government treat them as children. <<

No, the government, in this analogy, is likened to the parent who does NOT deserve the custody. There is a demand for telecom access. That demand is rightfully met by the free market. But because the government has assumed the responsibility of dictating the terms of telecom service, there is no free market. We both agree that the government doesn’t RIGHTFULLY have the responsibility to chose television access, but it TOOK that responsibility away from free society. Now that it has that authority, it is IRRESPONSIBLE to claim on the one hand that free expression does not prevent the government from regulating the cable industry, but on the other hand, free expression requires the government to provide pornography.

The only speech Ron Paul’s vote would free is pornography. And that is sick.