FULL Video of Freedom Watch's Debut

[Matt Collins]

http://usaguns.net/patriots/free1.html

[IPSecure]

Did you catch the text at bottom of screen at 7:04 in the interview?
(Fox Clock: 7:07a PT)


In 1988 Ron Paul "Went Rogue" Ran For President As Libertarian

At 11:12 in the interview, Palin states the following:

Governors for the most part understand the 10th amendment to our Constitution, and understand that local control is the best way to control and to um govern effectively, so um I don't know in the legal realm, what governor Jindal would be able to do and then perhaps not get sued by the federal government, but if there is a respect for the 10th amendment in the Constitution, then yes a governor, a local governing body should be able to have a lot more control than what we are allowed to have today under the Obama administration.It is all about control...
Move tyranny to the states, then locally?

[Matt Collins]

I haven't watched it (yet). "Went Rogue" was a direct play on Palin's book title.

[Bergie Bergeron]

Good thing I made you admin on the Facebook event :)

[.Tom]

Wow this show has really been watered down. I felt like the Judge was sucking up to Palin or not calling her out on anything so she stays with Fox News or something.

She just kept repeating "this Obama administration" like a fucking robot. Jesus Christ what a statist neocon partisan hack.

There wasn't even any debate. After she said something completely statist the Judge just moved on. And then he acts like libertarians are somehow coming together with these disgusting teabagger statists.

This show really irked me. This is why I refuse to be a "pragmatic" aka unprincipled libertarian. The entire message just gets dumbed down into meaningless neocon dribble.

Also, the Judge keeps calling Rand a libertarian when Rand has specifically said he is NOT a libertarian.

He also keeps cutting people off and not discussing anything for longer than like 10 seconds.

And bringing on a homophobic statist bigot like Michele "federal gay marriage ban" Bachmann and calling her a "freedom fighter" is absolutely disgusting.

I think drugs are a great libertarian litmus test. If you claim to be for "personal liberties" and against "big government" then you can't be against the re-legalization of a fucking plant.

Jesus Christ, I hate politicians.

Oh, and if I hear these Republic*nts blaming the "Democratic Party" and "Barack Obama" one more time I'm going to explode.

These statists worship at the alter of the left-right paradigm.

I typed parts of this post as I watched the show. It may come across as a rant, but oh well, it's a valid one.

[Kregisen]

We all want the judge to tear Palin apart, as he easily could, but keep in mind millions of Americans are ignorant and don't do their own research. They follow who they love and if we want to change the minds of Palin's supporters, we first have to create the image of being on the same side, instead of being the enemy.

Palin is a huge hypocrite, we all know. (and have sources to back it up) But just because we win in argument doesn't necessarily mean we win more support.


Think about if all tea-partiers supported Ron Paul. He would win the nomination in a heartbeat and he'd be the next president.

One step at a time, and this is the first show.....instead of alienating people let's try to bring them together and after that, we can educate them.

[Matt Collins]

He also keeps cutting people off and not discussing anything for longer than like 10 seconds.That's called "broadcasting" :(


These statists worship at the alter of the left-right paradigm.
That is unfortunately true

[Fozz]

Wow this show has really been watered down. I felt like the Judge was sucking up to Palin or not calling her out on anything so she stays with Fox News or something.

She just kept repeating "this Obama administration" like a fucking robot. Jesus Christ what a statist neocon partisan hack.

There wasn't even any debate. After she said something completely statist the Judge just moved on. And then he acts like libertarians are somehow coming together with these disgusting teabagger statists.

This show really irked me. This is why I refuse to be a "pragmatic" aka unprincipled libertarian. The entire message just gets dumbed down into meaningless neocon dribble.

Also, the Judge keeps calling Rand a libertarian when Rand has specifically said he is NOT a libertarian.

He also keeps cutting people off and not discussing anything for longer than like 10 seconds.

And bringing on a homophobic statist bigot like Michele "federal gay marriage ban" Bachmann and calling her a "freedom fighter" is absolutely disgusting.

I think drugs are a great libertarian litmus test. If you claim to be for "personal liberties" and against "big government" then you can't be against the re-legalization of a fucking plant.

Jesus Christ, I hate politicians.

Oh, and if I hear these Republic*nts blaming the "Democratic Party" and "Barack Obama" one more time I'm going to explode.

These statists worship at the alter of the left-right paradigm.

I typed parts of this post as I watched the show. It may come across as a rant, but oh well, it's a valid one.

Purist debbie downers like you are annoying.

[low preference guy]

Purist debbie downers like you are annoying.

why feed the troll?

[.Tom]

why feed the troll?

Troll? You've got to be kidding me.

I'm the biggest fan of the Judge's internet show.

This show was just entirely different. I don't know if he's doing it for ratings or what, but it seemed just like a bash-Obama-fest that tried to downplay libertarianism and replace it with the tea parties.

[BenIsForRon]

The first have of the show was great, from a political perspective. It was all about coalition building. Judge Nap knows what's up, that the liberty movement can really affect policy in this country if we pretend like we're friends with enough people.

[justinc.1089]

Its really simple; Napolitano was wisely trying to help bring Tea Party neo-cons, paleo-cons, social-cons, and libertartians together, so that we can educate these other groups of people again. Like Ron Paul says, they, and the Republican party, have lost their way.

We have to help them find the way to liberty again, and if they think we're their enemy they are not going to listen to us. So you have to act like, but not necessarily be, a friend, AND at the same time try to educate people.

The show was not putting down libertarianism and promoting Tea Party stuff, it was trying to bring the Tea Party back under the influence of libertarianism and Ron Paul.

It was an excellent show in my opinion.

[emazur]

Troll? You've got to be kidding me.

I'm the biggest fan of the Judge's internet show.

This show was just entirely different. I don't know if he's doing it for ratings or what, but it seemed just like a bash-Obama-fest that tried to downplay libertarianism and replace it with the tea parties.

Remember that Palin now works for Fox so doing a Palin bash-fest would put him in a very difficult position. The theme of this particular show was the Tea Party so it made sense to invite her, it was his initial show so it made sense to bring Palin on b/c she brings in viewers who hopefully stick around an help make Freedom Watch a success, and as mentioned in another thread the Judge's questions basically backed Palin into the corner as someone who would have to come out against the Patriot Act (not likely, but this could be used against her in the future if she makes another run as President).

I really don't think the Judge will water down the show. He wanted to bring in as many viewers for his debut show as possible - wouldn't you have done the same (at least for the debut)? And he got Palin followers to listen to Ron Paul while they were both on simultaneously, which is a plus. I consider it a successful first show. If he keeps bringing on Republicans all the time, he will be called out and his show will go down, but he's a guy who had people like Alex Jones and G. Edward Griffin (2 times) on his show before, and I fully expect him to keep bringing the libertarian "fringe" guests onto his show.

[GunnyFreedom]

It didn't look watered down to me, it looked like a strategic attempt to create the kind of coalition that will one day lead to a President Paul. You gain electorate share by welcoming people and celebrating your common ground. Sure, Judge Nap could have ripped palin to shreds, got himself fired, and split the tea party, Republicans, and Paulers into three groups ensuring the Democrat reign for another decade.

I kinda think that's counter-productive tho, y'know?

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times -- and everybody whose actually gone out and done it reports the same. MOST of the tea partiers really do share the vast majority of values in common with us, and it was critically important for us to be involved up to our eyeballs so that we could influence them with our views in the areas they failed on principle.

Wherever Paulers got heavily involved, the tea party people generally look like us. Wherever the Paulers just decided to get hateful and spit, the tea party people look like McCain Palin. Does anybody REALLY think that's just a %$#@ coincidence???

The guilty party is no further than the mirror.

My principles are pure, but backwater puritanism is the one thing that will assure the neocon/progressive future of our nightmares. Sometimes we reject all reform except for an instantaneous flash where an entire universe 100% to our specifications magically appears around us with much fanfare and cheering. The common phrase goes "the perfect is the enemy of the good" but I detest that phrase because it assumes that progress stops at "good."

If some damn fool neocon will help me win a 2nd Amendment bill I'll smile at him and just ignore him whenever he says stupid stuff. Once the bill is passed I'll work on the next one, and only call upon the tool if I need him for the next act.

This bull$#!& some of us have where constitutionalists and libertarians are supposed to commit seppuku whenever we appear in public just to prove some arcane point, all it really does is leave us with a lot of dead constitutionalists and libertarians.

The morons are just morons, so why give them the time of day? Use them when they are useful and ignore them when they are not. Except in rare cases, arguing with them merely gives them another opportunity to reinforce their twisted views on the sheeple. Anything else is self-destructive and counterproductive to everything we are trying to do here.

Today, the effort is to shot-gun-pellet our people into office by overwhelming the establishment vetting process and speaking to the people has honest brokers of the principles which govern our hearts. Do you think people are unaware of the differences between Ron Paul and Sarah Palin on foreign policy? By saying, "yeah, we'll work together to reduce the size and scope of domestic government" IS NOT A FRAKKING IMPLIED CONTRACT TO SUPPORT THEIR IDIOTIC FOREIGN POLICY!

Show the voters where we will work together, let the voters sweep in a massive wave of rightards, and a crap-ton of OUR PEOPLE get swept in with them. Over the course of 4 years, their voting record will out, and they will repeat Ron Paul's magnificent primary victories, while the tools keep rotating out of office until the people find another gem like us.

the path is clear, and it is one that we can win. The restoration of America as it should be will not come overnight, but will probably take 20 years.

That is 20 years I am willing to give up of my life to return to the America of my dreams that never really was, completely, but we were once awful close. That's 20 years that with every major failure or setback could become 25, 30, 35, 40

even so, I am willing to give up 40 years of my life to restore the America that I love.

But when our own people work towards extending that 20 years into 40 years, I just get a little annoyed....

[JohnEngland]

And bringing on a homophobic statist bigot like Michele "federal gay marriage ban" Bachmann and calling her a "freedom fighter" is absolutely disgusting.

Right... So anyone who wants to defend marriage from being distorted to mean that a union between two practising homosexuals is marriage is a "homophobe"?

Nonsense! A phobia is an irrational fear of something. We don't have an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. It is a reasoned opposition to the institution of marriage becoming something it's not.

Now, homosexuals could call their union something else, like Sandwich, Jupiter or Sculpture, but it's NOT marriage and never will be - even if the law decrees that it is.

Heterosexual unions and homosexual unions will never be equal in value. Man and woman are designed for each other, for the purposes of continuing the species. Homosexual unions cannot reproduce - it's a fundamentally unsustainable system.

Now, I have no problem with people being homosexual if they want, or having their own unions etc. But allowing marriage to be distorted? And by government fiat? Nope.

[.Tom]

Right... So anyone who wants to defend marriage from being distorted to mean that a union between two practising homosexuals is marriage is a "homophobe"?

Nonsense! A phobia is an irrational fear of something. We don't have an irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality. It is a reasoned opposition to the institution of marriage becoming something it's not.

Now, homosexuals could call their union something else, like Sandwich, Jupiter or Sculpture, but it's NOT marriage and never will be - even if the law decrees that it is.

Heterosexual unions and homosexual unions will never be equal in value. Man and woman are designed for each other, for the purposes of continuing the species. Homosexual unions cannot reproduce - it's a fundamentally unsustainable system.

Now, I have no problem with people being homosexual if they want, or having their own unions etc. But allowing marriage to be distorted? And by government fiat? Nope.

Stop giving straights state-granted special privileges like tax breaks then. The main reason I support gay marriage is because I don't like straights getting special privileges from the state.

I'd like to completely privatize marriage ideally.

By the way, I'm straight, in case you were wondering. :cool:

[GunnyFreedom]

Stop giving straights state-granted special privileges like tax breaks then.

Hear here! As far as I am concerned, the government should not even recognize marriage period. Not typologically and not existentially.


The main reason I support gay marriage is because I don't like straights getting special privileges from the state.To me, that's like saying "the main reason I support killing cats, is because people kill dogs and I just want to be fair." I'm not sure those 'special privileges' do anything but harm the recipients of these alleged privileges. If I had to guess, I'd guess the divorce rate would be cut by more than half if the government didn't "reward" marriage, which would lead to fewer broken homes and more healthy children.

Just because they are killing dogs, man, doesn't mean that we should make them kill cats too just to balance the score.


I'd like to completely privatize marriage ideally.I'm not trying to privatize marriage, just to kick the government entirely out. Yeah, I know that's usually a synonym, but in this case I don't want to "give" it to anybody. Marriage does not belong to the government in the first place to be able to 'give' it to anyone.


By the way, I'm straight, in case you were wondering. :cool:um. I wasn't. but, OK. :confused: what difference does your carnal preference on gender make to the price of rooster eggs in China? :confused:

[.Tom]

I'm not trying to privatize marriage, just to kick the government entirely out.

That's exactly what I meant by privatize. I don't want the government involved in marriage whatsoever. In fact, I don't even want a government.

[free1]

That was a great show to watch.

[newbitech]

I am watching now and I hit pause for a second because something Dr. Paul said confused me. I understand where he is coming from on the illegitimate power of the Federal Government to regulate abortion.

When speaking on individual gun rights, Dr. Paul said at 4:53 in this broadcast that he "doesn't think of rights as belonging to the government". He believes rights belong to the individual. He doesn't like to think people have rights because they belong to a group. He calls these collective rights.

Later, when speaking on abortion, Dr. Paul goes on to say at 7:03 that, "Yes, States have an absolute right, that's the reason I support the repeal of Roe v Wade and allow States to take care of the problems."

So like I said, I understand his position as far as allowing local level decision making regarding abortion because the Federal Government does not have legitimate power to regulate abortion.

What I really don't understand is how in the case of guns, he says governments don't have rights, but in the case of abortion, states have an "absolute right" to take care of problems.

In my mind, I can do the mental exercise of juggling these positions and seeming contradictory statements. I just think the message is not quite clear on these points, especially in the context of coalition building with "social conservatives" who have not yet come to terms with the illegitimacy of the power of the Federal government to regulate out of the scope of their Constitutionally mandated powers.

I can make the leap from stripping the Federal government of its illegitimate powers, but I have a hard time allowing that power to be ceded to the state levels. So now assuming Roe v. Wade is overturned, and now the power to regulate abortion is handed down to the state level, what gives the State of Florida the "absolute right" to decide if "Jane" can or can't have an abortion? So now, the same reasoning can be applied to the state level. The states should not be regulating these individual rights.

Isn't the solution to decide once and for all as a nation that abortion is or isn't illegal? Why is this left to the states? Why not leave it to the counties? Why not leave it to the city? Why not leave it to the neighborhood or township? Why not leave it to the families? Why not leave it to the "parents" or just simply leave it to the woman who is carrying the potential life?

I can't even begin to ask these question in the context of Dr. Paul's philosophy of freedom and coalition building until I can come to a clear understanding on what exactly does Dr. Paul mean that in terms of abortion and regulation of abortion, "States have an absolute right".

This just doesn't make sense to me.. help me out here plz. Continuing on..

[newbitech]

haha Judge Nap sure pigeon-holed S-Pal on the repeal of the Patriot act!

Cut to commercial!!

[.Tom]

I am watching now and I hit pause for a second because something Dr. Paul said confused me. I understand where he is coming from on the illegitimate power of the Federal Government to regulate abortion.

When speaking on individual gun rights, Dr. Paul said at 4:53 in this broadcast that he "doesn't think of rights as belonging to the government". He believes rights belong to the individual. He doesn't like to think people have rights because they belong to a group. He calls these collective rights.

Later, when speaking on abortion, Dr. Paul goes on to say at 7:03 that, "Yes, States have an absolute right, that's the reason I support the repeal of Roe v Wade and allow States to take care of the problems."

So like I said, I understand his position as far as allowing local level decision making regarding abortion because the Federal Government does not have legitimate power to regulate abortion.

What I really don't understand is how in the case of guns, he says governments don't have rights, but in the case of abortion, states have an "absolute right" to take care of problems.

In my mind, I can do the mental exercise of juggling these positions and seeming contradictory statements. I just think the message is not quite clear on these points, especially in the context of coalition building with "social conservatives" who have not yet come to terms with the illegitimacy of the power of the Federal government to regulate out of the scope of their Constitutionally mandated powers.

I can make the leap from stripping the Federal government of its illegitimate powers, but I have a hard time allowing that power to be ceded to the state levels. So now assuming Roe v. Wade is overturned, and now the power to regulate abortion is handed down to the state level, what gives the State of Florida the "absolute right" to decide if "Jane" can or can't have an abortion? So now, the same reasoning can be applied to the state level. The states should not be regulating these individual rights.

Isn't the solution to decide once and for all as a nation that abortion is or isn't illegal? Why is this left to the states? Why not leave it to the counties? Why not leave it to the city? Why not leave it to the neighborhood or township? Why not leave it to the families? Why not leave it to the "parents" or just simply leave it to the woman who is carrying the potential life?

I can't even begin to ask these question in the context of Dr. Paul's philosophy of freedom and coalition building until I can come to a clear understanding on what exactly does Dr. Paul mean that in terms of abortion and regulation of abortion, "States have an absolute right".

This just doesn't make sense to me.. help me out here plz. Continuing on..

States can absolutely NOT have rights. It's a complete contradiction. The absolute antithesis of libertarianism. It is logically impossible for a movement about individual rights to support the very institution that we are against having rights.

If something is morally wrong, i.e. coercive, it doesn't matter whether the violent mob known as "USA" or the violent mob known as "Texas" is doing it.

This is why I'm not a State's Rights person or a Constitutionalist. Because it's entirely illogical and arbitrary and depends on a piece of paper that no one alive today ever agreed to.

With that said, I think Dr. Paul just wants more decentralization, but I think the logically consistent thing to do there would be to just advocate abolishing the federal government period.

I don't like picking and choosing rights based on a piece of paper, and then picking and choosing which level of government enforces those rights based on a piece of paper.

This is why I'm a voluntaryist. I'm against all coercion and monopolies on violence, I don't care if they call themselves a City, a County, a State, a Nation, a World Government, whatever. Aggression is wrong, and equally wrong no matter who does it at what level.

[newbitech]

States can absolutely NOT have rights. It's a complete contradiction. The absolute antithesis of libertarianism. It is logically impossible for a movement about individual rights to support the very institution that we are against having rights.

If something is morally wrong, i.e. coercive, it doesn't matter whether the violent mob known as "USA" or the violent mob known as "Texas" is doing it.

This is why I'm not a State's Rights person or a Constitutionalist. Because it's entirely illogical and arbitrary and depends on a piece of paper that no one alive today ever agreed to.

With that said, I think Dr. Paul just wants more decentralization, but I think the logically consistent thing to do there would be to just advocate abolishing the federal government period.

I don't like picking and choosing rights based on a piece of paper, and then picking and choosing which level of government enforces those rights based on a piece of paper.

This is why I'm a voluntaryist. I'm against all coercion and monopolies on violence, I don't care if they call themselves a City, a County, a State, a Nation, a World Government, whatever. Aggression is wrong, and equally wrong no matter who does it at what level.

right, so how do you answer the abortion question? It sounds like by default, you agree with the right to choose regardless of whether you believe the "potential life" is life. Is this correct?

And, yes I am framing this question in terms of the current left-right paradigm debate. If you will reject this debate and answer in your own terms, I'd then simply like to know where you would stand in the following cases.

1.) Science has proven that life begins at conception.
2.) Science has proven that life does not begin at conception.
3.) Science cannot either prove or disprove there for the beginning of life is arbitrary.

I will answer this for myself, I think that regardless of whether science proves or disproves WHEN life begins, the ability of the individual to self-govern should not be infringed upon. That is, as long as the woman carrying the potential life or life is made whole by her decision to either proceed with birth or abort, then no law can preclude her from making this decision one way or the other. If the decision is to abort the life, thereby ending the life, the exigent consequences of this decision are limited to anyone besides herself and possibly family, doctor, spiritual advisors, if she would allow it. The responsibility of protecting this life does not extend beyond the womb, IMO.

[.Tom]

right, so how do you answer the abortion question? It sounds like by default, you agree with the right to choose regardless of whether you believe the "potential life" is life. Is this correct?

Yes, I'm pro-choice. I don't really base it on whether or not the fetus is alive, but if someone should be forced to have something inside their body that they don't want.

But, abortion's not a big issue to me, so I don't base my support of a candidate on it whatsoever.

[helmuth_hubener]

.Tom, don't you see the advantages to having smaller and more numerous polities? Easier exit, etc. Hong Kongs and Luxembourgs are generally freer than their larger peers. Restoring strong states' "rights" so-called would be a great step towards freedom. Nullification and other assertion of state sovereignity are steps along a spectrum toward secession. And when a state secedes, they have done what you propose: abolish the federal gov't entirely, at least within their borders.

[.Tom]

.Tom, don't you see the advantages to having smaller and more numerous polities? Easier exit, etc. Hong Kongs and Luxembourgs are generally freer than their larger peers. Restoring strong states' "rights" so-called would be a great step towards freedom. Nullification and other assertion of state sovereignity are steps along a spectrum toward secession. And when a state secedes, they have done what you propose: abolish the federal gov't entirely, at least within their borders.

Of course I see the advantages of that. Which is why I'm in favor of secession. But saying that certain mobs have "absolute rights" to aggress against peaceful individuals who live within their arbitrary geographical area I am totally against.

[ninepointfive]

this is the first time ever, I've seen Sarah Palin say anything of substance.

[newbitech]

Yes, I'm pro-choice. I don't really base it on whether or not the fetus is alive, but if someone should be forced to have something inside their body that they don't want.

But, abortion's not a big issue to me, so I don't base my support of a candidate on it whatsoever.


Fair enough, I feel the same way re: abortion. I would like to get back to my original question regarding rights tho. You mentioned earlier that you are an advocate of abolishing federal government and I take it that you are also taking this theme down the line to the point where the buck stops with the individual.

So what happens in the mean time? I assume that when the Federal government collapses, and Roe v Wade is overturned or at least turned over to a smaller centralized government that abortion will once again become "illegal". Are you prepared to then deal with the near certainty that while in the larger scope we would be moving towards more freedom, certain individual rights, like the right to regulate your own body vis a vis abortion or drug laws etc would be then NOT protected and therefor illegal?

I struggle with this. When it comes to wanting to take a principled stand, I absolutely do not want to give up any ground. I feel like in order to gain ground, I will have to strategically sacrifice certain guarantees within the current paradigm in order to promote a larger goal of securing a more freedom friendly NEW paradigm.

I think this is why it bothers me that Dr. Paul is willing to only address the Federal scope at this point in time when it comes to individual rights. I feel like it is a moral and psychological challenge for me to extrapolate the passing of rights from Federal power to State power and stopping short of extrapolating all the way down to the individual.

I just don't see how the masses will be able to make that leap without hitting the wall that is the old paradigm of government protects rights. Government should protect rights, or individuals should just flat ignore government that doesn't. I can do this, but for the masses? No, I don't think that will happen, ever. So, we then have to conceive of a new paradigm that takes this into account. I just see no way around compromising with the ideals of total freedom for individuals who demand it, like you and I and restricted aka protected freedoms of the masses. Do you?

[newbitech]

this is the first time ever, I've seen Sarah Palin say anything of substance.

I thought the same thing.

[MRoCkEd]

Judge Nap got Sarah Palin to say the police shouldn't worry about someone smoking a joint in his own house... that's not something most social cons would say.

He also sort of tricked her into opposing the Patriot act.

This show, in my view, will serve to make Palin's followers like the Pauls more.

[low preference guy]

Judge Nap got Sarah Palin to say the police shouldn't worry about someone smoking a joint in his own house... that's not something most social cons would say.

He also sort of tricked her into opposing the Patriot act.

This show, in my view, will serve to make Palin's followers like the Pauls more.

It sort seems like Sister Sarah has a repressed libertarian streak.

[.Tom]

Fair enough, I feel the same way re: abortion. I would like to get back to my original question regarding rights tho. You mentioned earlier that you are an advocate of abolishing federal government and I take it that you are also taking this theme down the line to the point where the buck stops with the individual.

So what happens in the mean time? I assume that when the Federal government collapses, and Roe v Wade is overturned or at least turned over to a smaller centralized government that abortion will once again become "illegal". Are you prepared to then deal with the near certainty that while in the larger scope we would be moving towards more freedom, certain individual rights, like the right to regulate your own body vis a vis abortion or drug laws etc would be then NOT protected and therefor illegal?

I struggle with this. When it comes to wanting to take a principled stand, I absolutely do not want to give up any ground. I feel like in order to gain ground, I will have to strategically sacrifice certain guarantees within the current paradigm in order to promote a larger goal of securing a more freedom friendly NEW paradigm.

I think this is why it bothers me that Dr. Paul is willing to only address the Federal scope at this point in time when it comes to individual rights. I feel like it is a moral and psychological challenge for me to extrapolate the passing of rights from Federal power to State power and stopping short of extrapolating all the way down to the individual.

I just don't see how the masses will be able to make that leap without hitting the wall that is the old paradigm of government protects rights. Government should protect rights, or individuals should just flat ignore government that doesn't. I can do this, but for the masses? No, I don't think that will happen, ever. So, we then have to conceive of a new paradigm that takes this into account. I just see no way around compromising with the ideals of total freedom for individuals who demand it, like you and I and restricted aka protected freedoms of the masses. Do you?

I think maybe I've come across unclear because I've been referring to various situations. I'll try to clear things up.

I am 100% against State's Rights period.

If there is a federal drug legalization bill then I am all for it. No state has the right to overrule that. Everyone in America should have the right to put whatever the fuck they want to into their own bodies. Period.

Same goes for any other law legalizing liberty. I have no problem with it being done on the federal level.

My point earlier was that if it was up to me I'd abolish the federal government, but that given it exists, everyone in the nation should have the same rights.

And yes, I hope to abolish all levels of government down to the individual.

[Matt Collins]

I am watching now and I hit pause for a second because something Dr. Paul said confused me.

When speaking on individual gun rights, Dr. Paul said at 4:53 in this broadcast that he "doesn't think of rights as belonging to the government". He believes rights belong to the individual. He doesn't like to think people have rights because they belong to a group. He calls these collective rights.

Later, when speaking on abortion, Dr. Paul goes on to say at 7:03 that, "Yes, States have an absolute right, that's the reason I support the repeal of Roe v Wade and allow States to take care of the problems."
I believe what he meant was that States have powers or authorities. In the course of conversation it's easy to misspeak on that and confuse the word "rights". The Constitution even speaks of States having rights, but rights vs privileges are opposites and this is something that needs to be understood by more people. Ron gets it, but as I said it's easy to get wrong.

[Matt Collins]

this is the first time ever, I've seen Sarah Palin say anything of substance.
YouTube - Sarah Palin on Ron Paul and Republican partisanship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YglP4clX0A)

[.Tom]

I believe what he meant was that States have powers or authorities. In the course of conversation it's easy to misspeak on that and confuse the word "rights". The Constitution even speaks of States having rights, but rights vs privileges are opposites and this is something that needs to be understood by more people. Ron gets it, but as I said it's easy to get wrong.

It seems to me like the "powers" vs "rights" thing is entirely semantics. Whether they have the "power" or the "right" to put you in a cage for smoking a plant makes no difference whatsoever.

[Matt Collins]

It seems to me like the "powers" vs "rights" thing is entirely semantics. Whether they have the "power" or the "right" to put you in a cage for smoking a plant makes no difference whatsoever.
The difference between rights and privileges is significant. In fact it is one of the most important concepts in the entire idea of liberty.


Read this:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/chapter_two.pdf

And then watch this:
Badnarik Constitution Class Part 1 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4944712480955285875)


Then get back to me! :)

[low preference guy]

LOL at classic liberals arguing with anarchists.

[newbitech]

I believe what he meant was that States have powers or authorities. In the course of conversation it's easy to misspeak on that and confuse the word "rights". The Constitution even speaks of States having rights, but rights vs privileges are opposites and this is something that needs to be understood by more people. Ron gets it, but as I said it's easy to get wrong.

Well, even if he meant to say powers or authorities, I still have a hard time understanding why states SHOULD have those powers or authorities much less absolute powers or authorities.

I get that he is referring to Federal Governments role in protecting rights and regulating actions based on the Constitution. But the Constitution doesn't really say how the States should handle those issues either.

I understand that the Federal Government is a Union of States. I understand that the Federal Government is meant to protect inalienable rights, but I have reached a somewhat circular logic problem that I am finding very hard to resolve on moral grounds as well as on intellectual/psychological grounds.

If the Federal Government is to defer its authority to regulate individual to the states, how then does the federal government follow its command to protect the same individuals from those states?

For instance, in the case of drug use. If the federal government has not authority to regulate drug use and therefor defers that authority to the states, how then can the federal government later say that a state is violating an individuals right to smoke a joint?

We would need the same protections at the state level which would mean that states would need to be designed in such a way that says the only legitimate authority of the states derives from protecting individual rights. And on down to the lowest level of government.

It's almost like saying hey, I will not feed my family IF they can feed themselves, but if they can't feed themselves, its not my problem because I don't have the authority to feed them.

Like a cop out. So we defer protection of rights to states, who then defer to counties, who then defer to cities, who then defer to neighborhoods/town, who then defer to families and individuals. Of course as soon as someones rights are violated, we loop all the way back to the top again where the most inefficient protections exist, ie the Federal Government. And before we have a chance to get defer the efficient protections, the consequences of those violations of individuals rights gets to compound making those problems far worse than if would have just flat said it is the individuals responsibility to protect their own rights.

I don't like the outcome of either way. Individuals can only protect themselves and their rights to a certain extent, with most individuals preferring to sacrifice a little bit of their rights in order to secure larger protections for the majority of those rights the feel important.

I'd like to get to a point where the only role of Federal government is to work out problems between states. And the only role of states is to work out problems between counties, and the only role of counties is to work out problems between cities and the only role of cities is to work out problems between neighborhoods and towns and the only role of neighborhoods and towns is to work out problems between families and individuals..

All the other crap that these government entities do is completely inefficient and the inefficiency is directly proportional to the number of steps away from this basic organizational structure.

So long winded stream of thought not withstanding, for any level of government to be involved with processes that are not within its very minimal scope of working out problems with the next level 1 step down is completely unacceptable.

In that vein, I do believe that the Federal government has a responsibility to be involved in things like natural disasters that impact several states, such as hurricanes, oil spills, and invasions of other Federal or State entities. With the caveat that ONLY if those states effected ask for the Federal government to intervene.

Of course we have to deal with equitable distribution problems, like for instance why should the northern states be forced to help the gulf coast states. But then this is something that I believe a properly functioning Federal government can handle. Quick example, gulf coasts states ask for federal assistance in organizing a national response to a hurricane or epic oil spill. Sure states can ask other states to help. But with the Federal government working to organize a national response, the States impacted can focus on organizing local responses at the request of the next lower level, the counties. In this way, I believe we can get to a point where individual counties and cities can be paired with other counties across the nation who share unique economic and social bonds.

Real quick for instance. There are a lot of tourist and snow birds from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia who visit my back yard every year. There is no reason why these people would be disinterested in helping to respond to the disasters that occur in the gulf on a yearly basis, especially if that disaster strikes their favorite place to visit. We don't see this kind of response now because the Federal government AND STATE governments say, don't worry, we got this.

All of our governments take completely the opposite approach, they defer UP the chain. It makes no sense to me.

[.Tom]

I was referring to the practical differences between rights and privileges for those affected by their enforcement.

For example, whether a state has a "right" to kidnap people and put them in cages and kill them or whether they have a "privilege" to kidnap people and put them in cages and kill them may be different philosophically speaking, as in where they derived this right or privilege from, but practically speaking the state exercises this power in the exact same way - through force.

Oh, and I can't take Badnarik seriously due to the fact that appeal to authority (the Constitution) is fallacious.

Here's some great videos of him though. ;)

YouTube - "How Much Government Is Necessary?" - Part 1 of the Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_k93op7_Pc)
YouTube - "How Much Government Is Necessary?" - Part 2 of the Debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dwW0D_o1Ww)

[John Taylor]

At 11:12 in the interview, Palin states the following:
It is all about control...
Move tyranny to the states, then locally?

This forum is dedicated to reviving federalism in the United States. State powers can be limited by state constitutions, but constitutionally, residual power over every non-enumerated power belongs to the states and to their people.

[.Tom]

This forum is dedicated to reviving federalism in the United States. State powers can be limited by state constitutions, but constitutionally, residual power over every non-enumerated power belongs to the states and to their people.

I thought this was a forum dedicated to individual liberty, not statism.

[Matt Collins]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/MattandtheJudge-ee.jpg
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Matt_and_Stossel_ee.jpg

[Matt Collins]

Just watched it.... a few points:





- When Sarah was rambling on about Israel they cut to a shot with Ron rolling his eyes. I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard.

- It's hard to take her seriously knowing that she supported the bailouts. Although she did earn some points back with me when she used the phrase "lamestream media".

- The segment with Governor Rendell made me want to punch the screen.

- I practically tuned out during the segment with DeMint, Armey, and Bachman.

- The Judge needs to structure things a bit better, either having less people on at once, or better management or something. He is just a bit too hyper. I realize he is trying to keep it fast paced, but I think he should allow for just a bit more than than his guests to only create a soundbite.


Just my $.02. I can't wait for more shows when hopefully we'll fill it with a bit more staunch limited-government guests.

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano on Lies The Gov't Told You & His New Fox Business Show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZmYxc4Hm38&feature=player_embedded)
YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano on Lies The Gov't Told You & His New Fox Business Show (2 of 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOV_SqYKEII&feature=related)