Here's what you need to understand; re-instituting slavery isn't the threshold for unacceptable abuse at the hands of local governments under a limited government.

Good job of missing my point there.

Great job of making a ridiculous point. How about you explain how your Doctor Paul hopes to protect the environment, local minorities, and disadvantaged communities from the whole sale destruction of regulatory agencies and and the retrenchment of Federal power at the expense of local governance. I'm sure he has a stance, enlighten me.

and to speak for myself, the fedeal aparatus has been built up throughout this century to address the excesses of Market capitalism and systematic oppression. It worries me when candidates and their followers gleefully call to tear the whole sumbitch down and tell me things will be better this time (or more likely, just ignore things were bad in in the first place).

"First of all, Paul's defended the right to privacy as an instrumental part of American civil rights. I would like to see the source of that quote, because it seems to fly right in the face of his own past arguments."

Fine.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

"Secondly, whether Paul likes it or not, sodomy laws got wiped out by the Supreme Court, so even if he would want to see states legislate such laws, he has no chance at that happening."

No chance? Really? With an already rightwing court, and legions of fundies eager to strike down Lawrence v. Texas, and Paul as President appointing extreme rightwing judges, there is plenty chance.

"Thirdly, even if there were such a chance, Paul has personally come out against the death penalty, so if all else were to fail (which is already impossible) then there STILL wouldn't be execution of anyone, gays included."

I thought you people were constitutionalists? Explain to me how Paul as President would override the decisions made by state governors about capital punishment.

" How does abolishing the Department of Energy lead inevitably to the re-institution of slavery?"

How is the Department of Energy an example of "unlimited government" or whatever dreck you're talking about? Who does the Dept. of Energy "oppress"? And what does abolishing it accomplish? Who is helped by its abolition?

And stop pretending as if the reinstitution of slavery would bother you so long as the government was "limited".

"I would appreciate it if you could explain this logic to me, Santa (or anyone else), because I really don't get it."

I really don't get why you think completely unregulated capital and local and state government would somehow be a step forward for anybody but the rich and privileged.

"And stop pretending as if the reinstitution of slavery would bother you so long as the government was "limited"."

Come on, Putin33. You can't really believe that there's anybody who would support the return of slavery. Enough hyper-hyperbole.

In Tolstoy and the RP cult's case, yes.

Do I even need to make the argument that Ron Paul doesn't want to bring back slavery? Is that really an issue you think is on him or anyone else's mind?

Troll.

I simply said they wouldn't mind very much if it was. And Paul pals around with League of the South types all the time, so a portion of his supporters do have it on their mind.

My face when libertarians are accused of wanting to bring back slavery:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/375513_2620308940038_1024591343_32179088_1563513105_n.jpg

Also, I'll get back to the various queries I've been ignoring in a little bit. Not feeling especially well at the moment.

Well I hope you feel better, Eden.

"The Enlightenment was born in the 17th century. I have no reservations whatsoever about having one foot "stuck in the 17th century", if that's what supporting (most of) the ideals of the Enlightenment means. "

ermm, hate to burst your bubble but the Enlightenment was born in the 18th century. Sorry to nitpick.

But I don't know why we're attacking the fringe parts of Ron Paul? Why don't we voice the evidence against two of his main things? The abolishment of the FED (and all his other economic ideas) as well as the dissolution of the 5 executive departments. I mean these are some big points that should not be treated lightly.

I mean, if the Fed is gone, then the FDIC better start saving up since reserve requirements would disappear. That means financial institutions can (and will) default much easier because they want to make money, not have reserves sitting around. Now in these economic times you may say "Well, they're being cautious. They'll keep their reserves high" To that I say unless you think this stagnation will last forever, that is a horrible, horrible line of argument. Then there's interest rates. Who would set them with the Fed gone? The market? Hate to tell you, but the market rate is rarely the socially optimal rate in these instances, so the lender is going to get shafted on that one. i could go on but I don't want to rant too much.

And about the departments? You may say Education has no right to exist. Who is the federal government to intervene in how a state teaches its people. While I am most inclined to support you in this case, what is there to stop some states from then putting creationism in their curriculum? Who is there to give states incentives to improve and meet higher standards? That is the reason I like the department of education. No Child left Behind and other things are failures and the government shouldn't set a curriculum. however, it should set standards, and have certain oversight as to what the children of this nation are taught. It's a more limited role than the current department, but I think the Department of Education still has a purpose to exist.

end rant

"How about you explain how your Doctor Paul hopes to protect the environment, local minorities, and disadvantaged communities from the whole sale destruction of regulatory agencies and and the retrenchment of Federal power at the expense of local governance."

There's an implicit assumption here that the federal government is always a force for good, and state governments are always a force for evil. But the history is nowhere near so obvious. It was state governments in the north who abolished slavery in the 1790s while the federal government continued to permit it; under the national system we have now, I cannot imagine such a drastic difference in state laws would be permitted (abolition, of course, had a serious effect on "interstate commerce"). It was state governments who nullified the Fugitive Slave Act while the federal government sought to have it enforced. While the Federal Bureau of Investigations was infiltrating and disrupting civil rights groups in the 60s and 70s, the important battles of the civil rights movement were being won entirely outside the political system - through strikes and boycotts.

As for the environment, for sixty years now the federal government has been using Nevada for extensive nuclear bomb tests and as a dumping ground for the nation's nuclear waste. Who has been protecting the people of Nevada from this abuse? Not a single federal department or agency. The only opposition to this over the years has been from Nevada's congressional delegation - and Ron Paul. The Federal Government is the biggest polluter on earth, and you're looking to it to protect the environment? The EPA was telling New Yorkers that the air was perfectly safe to breathe on 9/12/01 in order to keep the economic wheels turning on Wall Street, and now thousands are dying from lung cancer. Where was the protection there?

For every example of a state government doing something wrong and the federal government putting a stop to it, I can find two examples of the federal government doing something wrong and there being NO ONE who can possibly stop it. Under a decentralized system, it is relatively easy for people being oppressed by state governments to "vote with their feet" and move to another state where they will not be oppressed. Millions of people have done this throughout the nation's history - perhaps most notably in the mass exodus of blacks from the south to the north in the 1910's and 20's. But under a system where a tyrannical federal government has all the power to decide what the law is everywhere in the country and the states are simply administrative units, where can someone flee to? Mexico? Australia? Those most likely to be oppressed by the government (the poor) will not have the resources to make such a migration; they will be SOL while the wealthy can afford to flee (and take their capital with them).

"state governments are always a force for evil"

You assume the opposite. The market & state governments are always good. The fed is always evil. Never mind that states erected Jim Crow laws after the fed tried to implement a wide ranging Civil Rights law in 1875. Never mind that private corporations implemented segregationist policies prior to Jim Crow laws being implemented. Never mind that states across the country at this very moment are implementing reactionary laws targeting migrant workers, Spanish-speaking people, and women. Or crushing unions. Heck, you can basically call the state of the Delaware a wholly owned subsidiary of Dupont, the state of West Virginia a wholly owned subsidiary of Massey, and Montana is still facing the consequences of being under the dictatorship of Anaconda Copper.

If not for the federal government we wouldn't have any rights whatsoever. No civil rights. No right of privacy. No protection against state police powers. No labor rights. No freedom of speech or religion. No Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. No relief for natural disasters. You blame lax enforcement on the whole idea of a federal government but that has more to do with rightwing jackasses being in power than a deficiency in the federal government.

I also don't get why picking up and moving to Canada or Mexico would be harder than say, the Spanish-speaking population of Alabama right now having to get the heck out of that hellhole because of repressive laws. Relocation is relocation and land borders are land borders.

And I'd say, every time the states rights advocates clamor for states rights, it is so that they can oppress some group of people. It's almost never so that they can give people more rights than they already have.

Yeah all of those people who advocate States Rights support slaveholders. Just take a look at these guys for example -
http://www.vermontforsinglepayer.org/
;-)

Wait, what, a group that openly talks about using federal money to implement single payer is your great example of a progressive "states rights" group? Huh?

"The phase-in that could take up to six years is designed to meet federal requirements of the Affordable Care Act, to take advantage of federal monies targeted for Vermont's insurance exchange and to petition for federal waivers that would streamline Vermont's reform."

Gee, I didn't know Bernie Sanders was a secessionist. The group praises him to the high heavens.

"Senator Bernie Sanders is supportive of our efforts, and has said;
"The quickest route toward a national health care program will be when individual states go forward and demonstrate that universal and non-profit health care works, and that it is the cost-effective and moral thing to do.”

I may be new to this site, but didn't we try a system where the federal government was weak and the state governments were strong in the early years of our country (The Articles of Confederation). And as for the federal government supporting slavery, as I have always learned, the federal government purposely left that issue to the states so that the southern ones would join the union.

I am not a supporter, but nobody can deny that Ron Paul is the most honest (about his views), upfront and consistent candidate.

Paul flip flops all the time.

^Bullshit, Putin. I call complete and utter bullshit on your statement.

Okay Stephen Tyrone Colbert has been more consistent in his positions... :p
COLBERT 2012

!!!!!!

Paul has flip flopped on DADT, gay marriage, capital punishment, abolishing the fed, evolution, the border fence, global warming, earmarks, his regard for MLK, paying for Congressional medals, etc, etc.

And which candidate has flipped less?

Oh not to mention his ever changing flip flopping story on whether he wrote or even knew about what was written in the newsletters. In 1996 he did, claimed they were taken out of context, in 2008/2012 he didn't even know about them and didn't write them.

He also voted for the Afghan war.

And which candidate has flipped less?

Bachman, Santorum.