I'm confused....Is Dr. Paul simply a state's rights candidate

[amdajo]

According to posters on another thread, that's precisely what he is. Apparently, the states can pretty much do whatever they want to us. They do not have to recognize any of our unalienable rights, and never have. It's just the darn federal government that has gotten in their way. It's the states that have all the rights. In fact, if a state wants to turn into a christian taliban, then that is fine because if you don't like it, then you can just move to another state. So all this talk about liberty from Dr. Paul, only pertains to oppression by the federal govenment, but oppression by the state and local governments is just fine; it's their right. Again, you can just move if you don't like it. Of course, I could make the same argument about the federal government, that is, if you don't like it you can just move to another country.

Is that what this is all about. Is that what I'm working so hard to get Dr. Paul elected for. I'm supposed to be all excited about the fact that when I'm oppressed, my move may now be a little easier. Instead of having to move out of the country, I now may only have to move a few states over. What happens when that state passes some intrusive laws? Hey, I can just move again.

Maybe that should be the campaign slogan: "Vote for Dr. Paul, he'll make running away from tyranny easier."

I can't help but think about that old saying, "When a boot is on your throat, it doesn't matter whether it's the left boot, or the right boot. Well, I could easily extend that to, "When a boot is on your throat, it doesn't matter whether it's a federal boot, or a state boot.

I'm going to have to really think about all this. It seems to me that saying you're for idividual liberty, but also saying your for state's rights (especially when you seem to be wanting a state to be able to force a particular religion on people, or a particual belief on an issue like abortion) is hypocritical at best, or at the very least, obfuscatory.

Does this bother anyone else, or is it just me? If it's just me, then I guess I'm in the wrong place. I really like Dr. Paul, but I'm not interested in putting in all my time and money toward fighting for my liberty only half way.

 

[BLS]

I don't think you're 'getting' it.

What your saying is partly correct...yes, if you don't like your State's laws, you can move, because there are few 'blanket' laws from the Fed Gov.

But those states cannot violate the Constitution either. It is the Supreme Law of the land. Barre none.

yes, some states, like MN would likely keep abortion legal. But Wisconsin and Iowa may not. Etc. it's all about giving local leaders the right to make laws that apply to their consitituents, not the Fed Gov telling the whole nation "this is how it's gonna be".

Some states may want things certain ways, while others prefer alternatives.

 

[Craig_R]

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional. Its clearly unconstitutional to violate your rights.

someone seems to have given you the wrong impression.

 

[tony]

Well, yes and no.

Ron Paul is all for getting the Federal Government out of doing what it's not supposed to be doing.

At least at the State and local level, you have a much better chance of getting your voice heard. Say for instance in education. Do you believe people in DC are better at dictating rules or is the local school board made up of locals?

 

[tony]

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional. Its clearly unconstitutional to violate your rights.

someone seems to have given you the wrong impression.

Good point Craig. If much of the Federal laws are rendered "unconstituional" then many, many bad State laws would also possibly rendered unconstituional.

 

[Mani]

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional. Its clearly unconstitutional to violate your rights.

someone seems to have given you the wrong impression.

The states are bound by the constitution, but also realize when passing local laws and referendums YOU have a voice at the local level. It's much easier to walk up to your local or state official and get things done.

And if you can't at the LOCAL level you get your neighborhood together and out that local or state official. You have a lot more ability to be heard at the state/local levels, this is much more feasible than trying to out the federal government.

I've witnessed a few times where an issue arose and local citizens took action at both the local and state level and had their voices heard.

 

[mdh]

The states are bound by the constitution, but also realize when passing local laws and referendums YOU have a voice at the local level. It's much easier to walk up to your local or state official and get things done.

And if you can't at the LOCAL level you get your neighborhood together and out that local or state official. You have a lot more ability to be heard at the state/local levels, this is much more feasible than trying to out the federal government.

I've witnessed a few times where an issue arose and local citizens took action at both the local and state level and had their voices heard.

A lot of times, states are way way way more pro-liberty than the federal government is. Look at how several states now have passed legislation at the state level making it illegal to participate in realid!

 

[Bruehound]

They dynamic of a Republic creates a mechanism whereby a marketplace for government provides a check and balance preventing oppression. The mere threat of 'vote with your feet' is enough political leverage.

Back when our phoney welfare reforms were being debated, the socialists would scream it would "create a race to the bottom ". More accurate would be a "race toward liberty'.

 

[Kuldebar]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

What Really Divides Us?

States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Also see The Principles of '98 from Thomas Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

 

[jblosser]

You are conflating the questions of the final goal and the position of the Presidency Dr. Paul is running for. You are also really convinced I think that the only way to have liberty is to dictate it from the top down. This is against the advice of the Founders, who made a complicated government structure because they thought it would do the best job protecting liberty in the end. The biggest threat to liberty is a central government that gives itself the authority to protect all liberty for everyone. You might as well paint a big target on DC: "Special interests, come fight liberty here".

Yes, Dr. Paul absolutely is for full individual liberty. However, he understands that he as President has no legal right to dictate liberty to the states. Watch the Google interview, he makes this point several times. ("Are you opposed to..." "Well as President I'd have no right to tell the states...".)

We have to start somewhere. Individual liberty is impossible as long as the Federal government is a nanny state. Once we fix that, things like the Free State Project can really get it done on a state level, and it can spread from there. An authoritarian state will not keep residents or funds and will be pushed to open itself.

Do we want liberty in every single state? Yes, of course. But we guarantee that at the state level. If you think that a central guarantee is better, I invite you to look at where we are today, and ask why you think a small state government would be *more* likely to violate liberty than a large central government has been.

 

[IRO-bot]

9 replies and and not a response from the original poster. *whatever*

Regardless it was a good concern. Thank you all for the excellent information. I will be using this if and/or when that concern comes up to my future Ron Paul converts. I believe I have two already, they are spreading the word.

 

[beermotor]

According to posters on another thread, that's precisely what he is. Apparently, the states can pretty much do whatever they want to us. They do not have to recognize any of our unalienable rights, and never have. It's just the darn federal government that has gotten in their way. It's the states that have all the rights. In fact, if a state wants to turn into a christian taliban, then that is fine because if you don't like it, then you can just move to another state. So all this talk about liberty from Dr. Paul, only pertains to oppression by the federal govenment, but oppression by the state and local governments is just fine; it's their right. Again, you can just move if you don't like it. Of course, I could make the same argument about the federal government, that is, if you don't like it you can just move to another country.

Is that what this is all about. Is that what I'm working so hard to get Dr. Paul elected for. I'm supposed to be all excited about the fact that when I'm oppressed, my move may now be a little easier. Instead of having to move out of the country, I now may only have to move a few states over. What happens when that state passes some intrusive laws? Hey, I can just move again.

Maybe that should be the campaign slogan: "Vote for Dr. Paul, he'll make running away from tyranny easier."

I can't help but think about that old saying, "When a boot is on your throat, it doesn't matter whether it's the left boot, or the right boot. Well, I could easily extend that to, "When a boot is on your throat, it doesn't matter whether it's a federal boot, or a state boot.

I'm going to have to really think about all this. It seems to me that saying you're for idividual liberty, but also saying your for state's rights (especially when you seem to be wanting a state to be able to force a particular religion on people, or a particual belief on an issue like abortion) is hypocritical at best, or at the very least, obfuscatory.

Does this bother anyone else, or is it just me? If it's just me, then I guess I'm in the wrong place. I really like Dr. Paul, but I'm not interested in putting in all my time and money toward fighting for my liberty only half way.

States have Constitutions too, sir. And it is a hell of a lot easier to change a state law than it is to change a Federal one. Thus, while some states may be worse than others, 1) you have the constitutional freedom to move, and 2) you have a MUCH better chance of actually effecting local policy. That is the fight we are engaged in. States currently just do what the Feds tell them, for the most part. A situation where that was different would be VASTLY preferable from an individual liberty perspective.

 

[amdajo]

umm, no. the states are bound by the constitution as well. any laws they make have to be constitutional. Its clearly unconstitutional to violate your rights.

someone seems to have given you the wrong impression.

Well, I don't know how to capture quotes from another thread, but several people on the most recent "Ron Paul on abortion thread" are saying that the states are not bound by the constitution and that the supreme court should have no jurisdiction over individual rights cases. So who is right?

Obviously, opinion is fine, as long as it is expressed as opinion, but maybe people on this forum need to stop expressing their opinion (or their desires) as fact!

 

[Kuldebar]

Great points Jblosser.

It is said that all politics are local and liberty works best at a local level and the more local the better.

People have far more control over the laws and legislature that govern them when they are on a state or local level. The grand experiment of the Republic was to have a many faceted approach to freedom, no blanket rules taking choices away from people.

 

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

States also have their own constitutions, most of them designed after the Federal Constitution, which place limits upon what state governments can get away with.

 

[jblosser]

Well, I don't know how to capture quotes from another thread, but several people on the most recent "Ron Paul on abortion thread" are saying that the states are not bound by the constitution and that the supreme court should have no jurisdiction over individual rights cases. So who is right?

Obviously, opinion is fine, as long as it is expressed as opinion, but maybe people on this forum need to stop expressing their opinion (or their desires) as fact!

Since I'm one of those "several people", I'll clarify a bit: the 14th amendment does in fact pretty handily extend the Constitutional provisions to the several states. But Dr. Paul's positions in favor of letting the states decide so many things make it pretty clear he prefers going back to the 9th and 10th to protect liberty via a state approach, not using the 14th to do it nationally.

I'm not trying to talk opinion, I'm trying to talk history. Since I have degrees in these issues I'm pretty confident I'm not just talking my desires. This is also why I've been referring to original sources like Bastiat as well as the Federalist/Anti-Federalist. Look it up for yourself, don't take our word for it.

 

[BillyDkid]

Good point Craig. If much of the Federal laws are rendered "unconstituional" then many, many bad State laws would also possibly rendered unconstituional.

This is something I am not at all clear about and the OP brings up an issue that I have never completely gotten. Clearly, there are many, many things that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do, but the states are free to do and that seems like a problem to me. An example would be prohibition. Simply because federal prohibition was overturned does that mean states can't engage in it? There are areas in this country where alcohol consumption is illegal. There are even places where dancing is illegal. How does having a libertarian inclined President speak to that? The state prohibit all sorts of victimless activities. I am all for paring down the federal government to Constitutional levels, but have never been clear what the implications would actually be for individual liberty and all that stuff that is really the central point for most of us. Well, as well as not having to give half your earning to Uncle Sam. If we don't end up giving them to Uncle Sam, will we just end up giving them to our particular states?

 

[jblosser]

A lot of times, states are way way way more pro-liberty than the federal government is. Look at how several states now have passed legislation at the state level making it illegal to participate in realid!

Which are illegal under current understanding of the law. States cannot nullify national law. These measures are interesting as a statement of the will of the people, but if the Congress doesn't back down and/or Rudy McRomney wins and pushes for national ID, the states will lose "legally". If we're "lucky" Congress will allocate funds for this (they'll just print more) which will deflate most of the state objections.

(I say "lucky" because if we can't resolve it legally, who knows what will happen.)

 

[torchbearer]

They dynamic of a Republic creates a mechanism whereby a marketplace for government provides a check and balance preventing oppression. The mere threat of 'vote with your feet' is enough political leverage.

Back when our phoney welfare reforms were being debated, the socialists would scream it would "create a race to the bottom ". More accurate would be a "race toward liberty'.

EXACTLY ON POINT!

 

[jblosser]

This is something I am not at all clear about and the OP brings up an issue that I have never completely gotten. Clearly, there are many, many things that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to do, but the states are free to do and that seems like a problem to me. An example would be prohibition. Simply because federal prohibition was overturned does that mean states can't engage in it? There are areas in this country where alcohol consumption is illegal. There are even places where dancing is illegal. How does having a libertarian inclined President speak to that? The state prohibit all sorts of victimless activities. I am all for paring down the federal government to Constitutional levels, but have never been clear what the implications would actually be for individual liberty and all that stuff that is really the central point for most of us. Well, as well as not having to give half your earning to Uncle Sam. If we don't end up giving them to Uncle Sam, will we just end up giving them to our particular states?

Y'all are missing the central point: We have seen what central government does to rights. The point is that state governments are *better* at protecting these rights because they are smaller, and even if there's only a few of us that still care about liberty, we have a chance to influence the laws of one state where we have no chance to influence the laws of a nation this size.

There's not much point in worrying that we'll win liberty at the national level only to lose it at the state level. If the national population supports liberty, it won't be that hard to have the same effects at the smaller level of the state governments. Will it be perfect? No... as Dr. Paul repeatedly says on this issue, no system of man is perfect. We do the best with what we have.