We agree on the good so let's focus on what you think is bad. First, can you tell me why it would be a bad idea to allow the states to handle the functions of the EPA? Let's remember, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that those powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the citizens. Second, if you knew a business owner was racist against you, would you want to give him your money or would you rather go to the guy down the street who wasn't a moron?
Why would you paraphrase Ron as indecisive when he's been anything but? He wants to eliminate five cabinet level agencies, including the EPA. Enforcement of private property rights handles pollution controls. Regulators, like the EPA, *exempt* polluters from liability. Think about it. On your second point, again, you twist the argument to demagogue and characterize Paul as a racist, when he's anything but. The issue is whether the Federal Government has a right to tell private business who they must serve. There is zero authority granted in the Constitution to the Federal Government for that, hence parts of the Civil Rights act being unconstitutional. Sure, the States could legally enact Civil Rights laws, but not the Federal Government. The position you take is that we're a nation of laws when it suits us. And when it doesn't, we're a nation of men (who ignore the law). Consider how well that's served America in the past 100 years. Look at the state of the nation, today. You really think it's a good idea to ignore the Constitution because Congress wants to?
Because pollution does not know state boundaries. I'm not going to bother to argue the value of anti-racist and civil rights and liberties laws. Their value is self evident, and they need to be part of a great UNITED States or any other civilized society. And that's why we have them. Paul would not support them. This is the main problem with libertarianism. It is step backward away from civilized society into a colder, crueler more animalistic, selfish one. If we can't agree as a society - and government is central to society - to help each other out, then we are neither ethical nor united. We are not all islands unto ourselves, although we might want to be sometimes.
Fair statement. However, do you truly believe that if a company polluted in NY and NJ, both NY and NJ wouldn't be all over them? First, the federal government has no right to tell business owners who they can serve. For me it's simple. If a business owner was racist I would prefer he or she be able to hang a sign outside that says No ______. This is preferable to potentially supporting a racist business owner. However, if you feel differently I understand that. We have this thing called a Constitution and if the states decide to give the federal government more power to do X, there is a process. When we allow the federal government to do whatever it wants, we get things like the NDAA, Patriot Act, undeclared wars, 15 trillion dollar deficits, an economy on the brink of collapse...you know, little things like that. A return to a Constitutionally limited federal government would be a giant step forward, unless of course you consider what I just described as progress.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It is a huge logical fallacy to say something along the lines of "Oh you are against the war on drugs, so you're for babies main-lining heroin huh!?!?!". Just because we're against the Federal government telling us what we can and cannot do, does not make us anti-social heathens. What do you think this country did before 1913 (for those less informed, the first permanent federal income tax, the spark that lit this debacle, further accelerated by FDR later)? Libertarianism is to objectivity as neo-conservatism is to double-standard. This thing must be starved, for federal governments who also happen to be super-powers with a massive concentration of power at the federal level are insatiable, and (un)fortunately self-destructive. He who rules far from the roost, rules poorly.
That's all feel-goodism bullsh*t. We are either a nation of laws, or not. You advocate we ignore the law when it suits us. That's exactly the same attitude that's brought us to the financial and constitutional precipice, we stand at today. If you think about it, private property rights control polluters. Living 2 states downstream from a coal plant is irrelevant. The 1,000,000 land-owners between you and it, will be far worse off, make a far stronger case in court, and bankrupt the coal plant long before you get a chance. Problem solved.
and there is the main problem with liberalism- meaningless unrealistic slogans. [/QUOTE] You forgot to mention magical thinking.
Piss off troll, you have no clue what I care about. Fact is, Ron Paul's a member of congress and his Constitutional duty is to vote on legislation, not glad-hand in Iowa -- ESPECIALLY if he thinks that legislation will assure our "descent into totalitarianism." He's a hypocrite and you're a koolaid drinking fool.