General Problem I Have With The New Campaign For Liberty

[rational thinker]

The overall strategy that Campaign For Liberty is using is to obtain seats within local, grassroots government positions and fill them up with Ron Paul Republicans so that they may implement libertarian leaning governmental policies. But here's the problem I have with this: Ron Paul is able to be a libertarian leaning Republican on the national scene because he is about reducing control of the federal government. But with the new, local Ron Paul Republicans; what will they be reducing? State government power.

Let me give you an example. Ron Paul consistently states on many hot button issues that it is best to leave it to the states to decide. For example, the minimum wage. If, say, Ron Paul were president, he would eliminate the federal minimum wage and let the states handle it. But let's say that California is full of Ron Paul Republicans controlling the state government. Since they're libertarians, they too will also eliminate the minimum wage. In the end, the states would just be like the federal government, and have no control at all.

Does anybody see what I'm getting at?

[pinkmandy]

Well, it will be effective at getting the states to reject federal power, funding, etc. I think that's the aim. :) Imo, EVERY state should be up in arms rejecting the National ID. That's a perfect example of how most of our states have basically rolled over for the feds. A statehouse full of RP Repubs would have told the fed where to stick their plans for the ID, kwim?

And besides, if a state wants a state minimum wage (not federal) then that's the point. They can make their own decisions and are free to change what doesn't work. It's much easier to hold reps accountable at the state level.

[jonsmallberries]

I see where you're coming from. In fact, I've come to realize that, short of an amazing series of events, moving our government or general population's philosophies about government back towards such a libertarian/Ron Paul-style view will take decades, if it can be done at all. It is just too much. There is too much fear, too much propaganda, too many years since the population knew of a typical western government that wasn't so meddlesome.

It seems to me that the only thing can that can be done is to latch on to big issues, such as "the income tax" and try to force a partial shift. Frankly, nobody believes the government could function without one. But, there is a movement for the "flat tax." The population understands it, and I think it could be done. Is it perfect? No. Is it the ultimate solution? No. But if it was passed, what would happen? Well, no more withholding, which IMO, is the most evil aspect of our system. Also, people would feel the pinch at every turn. They would suddenly be asking themselves daily, "does the government really need this?" THAT would get them to think about what the government IS spending their money on. Then the light switches on...

In direct response to your question, I think if states started getting their income taxes repealed, like is happening, then we'll start to see a small, but hopefully growing domino effect of a movement away from government control and excess. I think the chances are really slim, however, of this panning out. Like Stephen King said in the Gunslinger, "the world had moved on." Short of some catastrophe (100s of times larger than Katrina), Joe Schmo will continue to believe that the government has our best interests at heart and knows how to achieve those interests

[LibertyEagle]

The above, plus they would stop "harmonizing" laws to fit UN policies. They would not agree to the NAFTA superhighway running through their state. They would vote to reduce taxes, spending and government control over the people, in general. They could also stand up to the federal government and say NO, in those issues that the federal government has no business being involved in.

Just because an issue isn't something the federal government should be involved in, it doesn't mean the state government needs to rule on it either. The issue could just be left up to WE THE PEOPLE. In fact, most things were intended to be handled that way. We have way too much regulation.

[hypnagogue]

I think I see what you're getting at. Most people around here not only want small government in Washington, but locally as well. This likely isn't a problem for many of Ron Paul's supporters. What's unknown is how many of Ron Paul's supporters also agree with at least moderate government management locally.


[W]ith the new, local Ron Paul Republicans; what will they be reducing? State government power. The uniting principle must be local independence to make their own decisions. As Dr. Paul works to reduce federal control from the top, CFL candidates will be working to reduce federal control from the bottom up. So long as we can keep our eyes on the prize, accountable local governance, and don't get sidetracked with whatever corollary issues we each may hold, then hopefully we can hold a coalition together long enough to get the job done. After that, we'll have to sit down and create our own solutions in the realm of local politics.

[ChrisInMN]

The overall strategy that Campaign For Liberty is using is to obtain seats within local, grassroots government positions and fill them up with Ron Paul Republicans so that they may implement libertarian leaning governmental policies. But here's the problem I have with this: Ron Paul is able to be a libertarian leaning Republican on the national scene because he is about reducing control of the federal government. But with the new, local Ron Paul Republicans; what will they be reducing? State government power.

Let me give you an example. Ron Paul consistently states on many hot button issues that it is best to leave it to the states to decide. For example, the minimum wage. If, say, Ron Paul were president, he would eliminate the federal minimum wage and let the states handle it. But let's say that California is full of Ron Paul Republicans controlling the state government. Since they're libertarians, they too will also eliminate the minimum wage. In the end, the states would just be like the federal government, and have no control at all.

Does anybody see what I'm getting at?


I don't understand what you're getting at. You said "In the end, the states would just be like the federal government, and have no control at all." But at the same time, if the state chose to eliminate the minimum wage, that *IS* control. The whole issue with State's rights is awesome. That way, what ever state has the laws that most closely match your beliefs you can move there.
For instance, if marijuana legalization was a states right issue, and you love to smoke reefer - then you move to the state that allows for that. Or, in contrast, if you're totally against buds then you move or live in a state where it's illegal.
Ron Paul is not against minimum wages as a states right, he just doesn't feel that the federal government should set the standard. I believe that by getting more people involved on the local level change will happen much quicker. As with everything else in life, you have to start bottom up, rather than top down.

ChrisInMN

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well , if issues that are not covered in the Constitution (US Constitution) are left to the states, at least we can get the issues on the ballots and the people can vote on it. I think that's the point. A lot of people fear "state rights". For some reason they think "jim crow laws would come back. We've moved past that. I believe that the majority of people would reject that line of thinking in 2008. I have been studying jury nullification lately. That is where the people have the ultimate say in what goes on. I was not aware that a juror has the right to make a decision on the law as well as the facts in a case. That's real power. Tones

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

And it's a whole lot easier to run for Congress if you've already been a city council member or a state legislator. Think Farm Team.

[acptulsa]

On the one hand, the federal government needs to be trimmed and pruned and reduced and liposuctioned and exercised and surgically reduced and all that and more the most. Absolutely.

On the other hand, state houses are a prime training ground for future national candidates. If we're to offer experienced policy makers we have to start them somewhere.

We can build our reputation on honesty and fair governance first, then expand it to include a willingness to chop out all that bureaucratic undergrowth in D.C. that's choking the nation. Gotta do what we gotta do--and if that included crawling as a preparatorty to walking, so be it.

[freelance]

You can help to control two vital functions at the local level: the schools and local law enforcement. I can't think of two more important functions that have morphed into the exact opposites of their stated functions.

[Jeremy]

Are you forgetting U.S. congress candidates?

[NH4RonPaul]

And it's a whole lot easier to run for Congress if you've already been a city council member or a state legislator. Think Farm Team.

What Scrib said.

Start small.. or, you could use the UN's own catch phrase: think globally, act locally.

[NH4RonPaul]

You can help to control two vital functions at the local level: the schools and local law enforcement. I can't think of two more important functions that have morphed into the exact opposites of their stated functions.

Not to mention that most of our school, civic, social, and religious institutions have been infiltrated by and are now controled by the United Nations via the Feds.

(Check out the girls scouts or the UU 'church' for example)

You think you have local control of your schools? Think again. Even here in NH we do not.


So the enemy is already at your door. Why go looking for them elsewhere when they have come right to you?

[constituent]

funny... that's the only thing i like.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

I don't want socialism in my state any more than I want it at the federal level.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Down with SOCIALISM! tones