RSDavis
02-15-2008, 03:59 PM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (02-15-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=358218675&Mytoken=2347B9DC-D746-4DC8-9794B1EB77BFD10835011511)
Hello Freedomphiles! I want to start today with a piece that mentions two things I blogged about yesterday - Ron Paul and the lifting of the Texas sex toy ban (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=357943372&Mytoken=88B82EA4-43EC-4732-8281238050B137A831774706). Terrence Watson writes (http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/02/ban-on-sale-of.html) on Western Standard:
As for the significance of the ruling, Cato scholar Randy Barnett explains here that
"Contrary to how their decision was widely reported the Lawrence majority did not protect a 'right of privacy.' Instead, quite simply, they protected 'liberty.'
[...]
Although he never acknowledges it, Justice Kennedy is employing here what I have called a 'presumption of liberty' that requires the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow 'fundamental.' "
What can justify such a restriction? In Lawrence, the Court quoted Justice Stevens' dissent in Bowers: on its own, "the fact that the majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."
Thus, in the case at hand, the belief that the sale and/or use of sex toys is immoral is not enough to justify a statewide ban on the practice. Such a ban, whether enacted in Kansas or California, violates the liberty guaranteed to all persons under the 14th Amendment.
A libertarian revolution is truly in the works, and it's flying in the teeth of Ron Paul's failing "rEVOLution" -- a movement that would have stripped federal courts of the power to strike down oppressive laws like the one in Texas.
Good for the court. Too bad for Ron Paul. The individual's right to live her life as she sees fit trumps the "liberty" of the mob to tell her what to do in the privacy of her own home.
I gotta say, I agree with Cato and the author on this one. But Ron Paul is not a libertarian - he's a Constitutionalist. So, he is for a very strict state's rights interpretation of the Constitution. That means that his dissent from the Lawrence v Texas ruling is very consistent with his federalist principles. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has the right to make a decision about the selling of sex toys or about the legality of private butt sex.
That said, what about the 10th Amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I can understand how the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from getting involved in powers that should be reserved for the state, but what protection does it give the individual? Why have "or to the people" at all if no one can decide that the power belongs neither to the federal or state government?
To define "to the people" better, I think that one must follow the Cato reasoning of a "presumption of liberty," in that a government has to show a compelling interest in curbing an activity, rather than the people showing a compelling interest in keeping it around.
But let's move on. Lance McNeil writes (http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/perspectives/2008/2008-02-14-ronpaul.htm) in the Pepperdine University Graphic his (astute) opinion on how Ron Paul could improve his speechifying:
I had the honor of serving as Paul's media sign holder immediately after the Republican presidential debates on Jan. 30, and had the opportunity to ask him a few questions. In particular, I commented that he was rarely given an opportunity to speak earlier that evening, which was really a glorified tennis match between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Perhaps his answer to my comment best sums up why some voters simply cannot get behind him: some people, he said, simply don't want to hear the truth.
To an extent, Paul's assertion that some voters do not want to hear the truth is quite true. But perhaps more precisely, what many voters want to hear is a more aspirational version of the truth. Frank Luntz, the legendary political communications guru and author of "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear," has cited that most people want a president to be self-defined and aspirational. Paul is undoubtedly self-defined, but is he aspirational? No — or at least it seems that way.
Though his campaign slogan of "Hope For America" is perhaps as aspirational as you can get, Paul's problem is that he frames his goals negatively. He has an excellent command of the issues confronting America, but is prone to emphasizing the stark negative consequences of our domestic and foreign policies instead of touting the rewards we would reap if we changed our ways.
Paul can help his case for the presidency by framing his ideas more positively and by communicating his future goals more than listing the current problems plaguing our country. While many politicians seemingly need to become less trite, more realistic, and more focused on problem-solving, it seems to me that Paul would reach more voters by communicating his policy stances in a more aspirational manner, perhaps by beefing up his "Prescription for Prosperity" campaign or by expanding it to a comprehensive "Prescription For America."
Earth Times reports (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/top-three-contributors-to-ron-paul-are-us-army-navy,280491.shtml)that Ron Paul's top three contributors might surprise a lot of people, but not us:
According to opensecrets.org, the top three contributors to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign are from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force respectively.
"No matter how you measure it, Dr. Paul has the support of our nation's brave servicemen and women," said Kent Snyder, Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman. "His message of a strong national defense, and only going to war with a declaration of war – as mandated by the Constitution – resonates with those who risk their lives to defend that Constitution."
No branch of the military appears among the "top contributors" to GOP frontrunner John McCain's campaign.
Additionally, Ron Paul's military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.
Hu-ah! (Incidentally, that interjection is actually an acronym for "Heads Up, AssHole!") Conservative writer Allen Wallenstein writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2730.html) on The Nolan Chart that Ron Paul needs to jump out of the Republican race and announce an independent bid during a speech in the proposed march on Washington:
Staying within the GOP party structure has gained him national notoriety, lots of free airtime at debates, favorable mentions by a surprising number of TV and radio commentators, and a huge sack full of cash alongside a still plentiful cash cow that keeps on giving and giving - and that "cash cow" is us.
But now, it's time for Ron to just leave.
By pushing John McCain to the fore, the most liberal of all GOP candidates (save for the war issue), the party has abandoned the last pretense of being even in the extended neighborhood of "conservative" political thought. Romney, who during his campaign has pretended to bitterly criticize McCain for failing to live up to conservative values and principles, now throws his ideological paperweight behind him as if what he said before no longer matters.
Well, the truth is: it doesn't - and it never did. It was all mere window-dressing.
The fact that Romney was the one who quit (instead of Huckabee, who had far less delegates under his belt at the time) shows that the move was intended to destroy any potential chance that there might be a brokered convention.
If anyone had any doubt that this was a calculated move, today's out-of-the-blue endorsement put the final nail into the brokered convention's coffin. This was a GOP backroom deal of the worst kind.
Patrick Ruffini wants to give (http://www.patrickruffini.com/2008/02/15/yes-we-can-give-ron-paul-the-boot/)Ron Paul the boot (and not the Roots Radical kind):
Chris Peden is a traditional conservative Republican candidate for Congress in Texas's 14th Congressional district.
He's running against Ron Paul.
The election is March 4th.
Here's what Ron Paul says about TX-14: "If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee."
Give what you can. Ron Paul is running scared — using his Presidential campaign's donors' money to subsidize a desperate last-minute attempt to save his Congressional seat.
And as Reason's David Weigel says (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125022.html), that would be pretty boneheaded for the neocons in the general election:
One problem with this campaign that I don't think the joiners have thought through... what does Ron Paul do the day after he loses a congressional primary? His only firm, titanium-strength committment not to run third party came when he... was appealing to donors to save him in TX-14. If the Libertarian Party calls a defeated Rep. Ron Paul on March 5 and offers him its nomination on a silk pillow, does anyone think he tells them to go away?
And finally, Marc Stephens writes (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/stevens/stevens1.html) on Strike the Root a new way to rebel against runaway government:
If the Ron Paul revolution is really about the message of freedom, freedom of each individual man and woman, then let's keep the momentum going and start doing things that will really bring that about.
By now it's clear: a candidate who may have been able to decrease the force used by the "United States government" against us, is not going to be the nominee. You can debate the reasons why all day; that will not diminish the restraints on our liberty one bit.
Voting in political elections has never brought about a decrease in the size and scope of governments. All it does is continue to provide government with a veil of legitimacy.
What about NOT voting though?
I could not disagree more. He thinks that by voting, one gives legitimacy to what they were doing, but I say by not voting, you are giving up the only peaceful means of change in this country. You are handing the decisions over to all those people you can't stand, and saying, "Here - I'm beat. You go fuck up the country all by yourself."
I can't bring myself to do that. Have a good one, Freedomphiles!
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg
Ron Paul Roundup (02-15-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=358218675&Mytoken=2347B9DC-D746-4DC8-9794B1EB77BFD10835011511)
Hello Freedomphiles! I want to start today with a piece that mentions two things I blogged about yesterday - Ron Paul and the lifting of the Texas sex toy ban (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=357943372&Mytoken=88B82EA4-43EC-4732-8281238050B137A831774706). Terrence Watson writes (http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/02/ban-on-sale-of.html) on Western Standard:
As for the significance of the ruling, Cato scholar Randy Barnett explains here that
"Contrary to how their decision was widely reported the Lawrence majority did not protect a 'right of privacy.' Instead, quite simply, they protected 'liberty.'
[...]
Although he never acknowledges it, Justice Kennedy is employing here what I have called a 'presumption of liberty' that requires the government to justify its restriction on liberty, instead of requiring the citizen to establish that the liberty being exercised is somehow 'fundamental.' "
What can justify such a restriction? In Lawrence, the Court quoted Justice Stevens' dissent in Bowers: on its own, "the fact that the majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."
Thus, in the case at hand, the belief that the sale and/or use of sex toys is immoral is not enough to justify a statewide ban on the practice. Such a ban, whether enacted in Kansas or California, violates the liberty guaranteed to all persons under the 14th Amendment.
A libertarian revolution is truly in the works, and it's flying in the teeth of Ron Paul's failing "rEVOLution" -- a movement that would have stripped federal courts of the power to strike down oppressive laws like the one in Texas.
Good for the court. Too bad for Ron Paul. The individual's right to live her life as she sees fit trumps the "liberty" of the mob to tell her what to do in the privacy of her own home.
I gotta say, I agree with Cato and the author on this one. But Ron Paul is not a libertarian - he's a Constitutionalist. So, he is for a very strict state's rights interpretation of the Constitution. That means that his dissent from the Lawrence v Texas ruling is very consistent with his federalist principles. After all, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has the right to make a decision about the selling of sex toys or about the legality of private butt sex.
That said, what about the 10th Amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I can understand how the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from getting involved in powers that should be reserved for the state, but what protection does it give the individual? Why have "or to the people" at all if no one can decide that the power belongs neither to the federal or state government?
To define "to the people" better, I think that one must follow the Cato reasoning of a "presumption of liberty," in that a government has to show a compelling interest in curbing an activity, rather than the people showing a compelling interest in keeping it around.
But let's move on. Lance McNeil writes (http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/perspectives/2008/2008-02-14-ronpaul.htm) in the Pepperdine University Graphic his (astute) opinion on how Ron Paul could improve his speechifying:
I had the honor of serving as Paul's media sign holder immediately after the Republican presidential debates on Jan. 30, and had the opportunity to ask him a few questions. In particular, I commented that he was rarely given an opportunity to speak earlier that evening, which was really a glorified tennis match between John McCain and Mitt Romney. Perhaps his answer to my comment best sums up why some voters simply cannot get behind him: some people, he said, simply don't want to hear the truth.
To an extent, Paul's assertion that some voters do not want to hear the truth is quite true. But perhaps more precisely, what many voters want to hear is a more aspirational version of the truth. Frank Luntz, the legendary political communications guru and author of "Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear," has cited that most people want a president to be self-defined and aspirational. Paul is undoubtedly self-defined, but is he aspirational? No — or at least it seems that way.
Though his campaign slogan of "Hope For America" is perhaps as aspirational as you can get, Paul's problem is that he frames his goals negatively. He has an excellent command of the issues confronting America, but is prone to emphasizing the stark negative consequences of our domestic and foreign policies instead of touting the rewards we would reap if we changed our ways.
Paul can help his case for the presidency by framing his ideas more positively and by communicating his future goals more than listing the current problems plaguing our country. While many politicians seemingly need to become less trite, more realistic, and more focused on problem-solving, it seems to me that Paul would reach more voters by communicating his policy stances in a more aspirational manner, perhaps by beefing up his "Prescription for Prosperity" campaign or by expanding it to a comprehensive "Prescription For America."
Earth Times reports (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/top-three-contributors-to-ron-paul-are-us-army-navy,280491.shtml)that Ron Paul's top three contributors might surprise a lot of people, but not us:
According to opensecrets.org, the top three contributors to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's campaign are from the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force respectively.
"No matter how you measure it, Dr. Paul has the support of our nation's brave servicemen and women," said Kent Snyder, Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman. "His message of a strong national defense, and only going to war with a declaration of war – as mandated by the Constitution – resonates with those who risk their lives to defend that Constitution."
No branch of the military appears among the "top contributors" to GOP frontrunner John McCain's campaign.
Additionally, Ron Paul's military contributions are greater than those of all other current candidates – John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama –combined.
Hu-ah! (Incidentally, that interjection is actually an acronym for "Heads Up, AssHole!") Conservative writer Allen Wallenstein writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article2730.html) on The Nolan Chart that Ron Paul needs to jump out of the Republican race and announce an independent bid during a speech in the proposed march on Washington:
Staying within the GOP party structure has gained him national notoriety, lots of free airtime at debates, favorable mentions by a surprising number of TV and radio commentators, and a huge sack full of cash alongside a still plentiful cash cow that keeps on giving and giving - and that "cash cow" is us.
But now, it's time for Ron to just leave.
By pushing John McCain to the fore, the most liberal of all GOP candidates (save for the war issue), the party has abandoned the last pretense of being even in the extended neighborhood of "conservative" political thought. Romney, who during his campaign has pretended to bitterly criticize McCain for failing to live up to conservative values and principles, now throws his ideological paperweight behind him as if what he said before no longer matters.
Well, the truth is: it doesn't - and it never did. It was all mere window-dressing.
The fact that Romney was the one who quit (instead of Huckabee, who had far less delegates under his belt at the time) shows that the move was intended to destroy any potential chance that there might be a brokered convention.
If anyone had any doubt that this was a calculated move, today's out-of-the-blue endorsement put the final nail into the brokered convention's coffin. This was a GOP backroom deal of the worst kind.
Patrick Ruffini wants to give (http://www.patrickruffini.com/2008/02/15/yes-we-can-give-ron-paul-the-boot/)Ron Paul the boot (and not the Roots Radical kind):
Chris Peden is a traditional conservative Republican candidate for Congress in Texas's 14th Congressional district.
He's running against Ron Paul.
The election is March 4th.
Here's what Ron Paul says about TX-14: "If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee."
Give what you can. Ron Paul is running scared — using his Presidential campaign's donors' money to subsidize a desperate last-minute attempt to save his Congressional seat.
And as Reason's David Weigel says (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125022.html), that would be pretty boneheaded for the neocons in the general election:
One problem with this campaign that I don't think the joiners have thought through... what does Ron Paul do the day after he loses a congressional primary? His only firm, titanium-strength committment not to run third party came when he... was appealing to donors to save him in TX-14. If the Libertarian Party calls a defeated Rep. Ron Paul on March 5 and offers him its nomination on a silk pillow, does anyone think he tells them to go away?
And finally, Marc Stephens writes (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/stevens/stevens1.html) on Strike the Root a new way to rebel against runaway government:
If the Ron Paul revolution is really about the message of freedom, freedom of each individual man and woman, then let's keep the momentum going and start doing things that will really bring that about.
By now it's clear: a candidate who may have been able to decrease the force used by the "United States government" against us, is not going to be the nominee. You can debate the reasons why all day; that will not diminish the restraints on our liberty one bit.
Voting in political elections has never brought about a decrease in the size and scope of governments. All it does is continue to provide government with a veil of legitimacy.
What about NOT voting though?
I could not disagree more. He thinks that by voting, one gives legitimacy to what they were doing, but I say by not voting, you are giving up the only peaceful means of change in this country. You are handing the decisions over to all those people you can't stand, and saying, "Here - I'm beat. You go fuck up the country all by yourself."
I can't bring myself to do that. Have a good one, Freedomphiles!
http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg