If Ron Paul was President and did away with the federal welfare state which I support coul

[aid632007]

If Ron Paul was President and did away with the federal welfare state which I support could the individual states run their own welfare program if the state votes for it and wants and chooses to have one also since Ron Paul is for state's rights would individual states and local governments be allowed to do this and would the individual states be allowed to run their own welfare programs without the federal government saying they can't do this ? Also if the individual states wanted to run it's own healthcare state run without the federal government would they be allowed to ?

[acptulsa]

Absolutely. And so could cities and counties. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it; indeed, the Constitution reserves such things for the states and cities (The Tenth Amendment says the federal government should not run things it doesn't have to run for the common good).

[Koz]

I agree, all welfare run by the Federal Government is unconstitutional. But there's nothing wrong with the states having a welfare system. I would immediately move to a state without welfare.

[acptulsa]

I would immediately move to a state without welfare.

Oh, to have a free market again, now that spring is here...

[MRoCkEd]

Yes.
I think you would appreciate the argument Mike Lee makes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13Mlt7JAKkA

[low preference guy]

yes, and that's fine. those states will have to increase taxes to finance their welfare programs, which will encourage businesses and individuals to leave the states, and the programs will later go bankrupt.

[jbuttell]

Absolutely. And so could cities and counties. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits it; indeed, the Constitution reserves such things for the states and cities (The Tenth Amendment says the federal government should not run things it doesn't have to run for the common good).

just so i get this right... does this mean that mandatory healthcare is also constitutional so long as its done at the state level? Because I find both to fall under the category of Involuntary servitude, and consequently both unconstitutional. That is, specifically when im being taxed directly on my labour to fund such programs.

[low preference guy]

just so i get this right... does this mean that mandatory healthcare is also constitutional so long as its done at the state level? Because I find both to fall under the category of Involuntary servitude, and consequently both unconstitutional. That is, specifically when im being taxed directly on my labour to fund such programs.

under the original interpretation of the constitution, yes, states can do whatever they want. they could legalize murder if they wanted to. the federal government was mostly for national defense.

[acptulsa]

yes, and that's fine. those states will have to increase taxes to finance their welfare programs, which will encourage businesses and individuals to leave the states, and the programs will later go bankrupt.

Shhhhh!! Why do you think they went for federal level programs with such zeal? Come on, we're trying to get allies out of the liberal ranks with these arguments! And you're letting them look under the hood!

Well, they always say that the fatter and happier everyone is the better the economy goes, and that it's only federal corruption that is preventing such happiness now. I guess we'll just have to remind them of that theory.


just so i get this right... does this mean that mandatory healthcare is also constitutional so long as its done at the state level?

One hell of a good question. Surely not, but I can't quote chapter and verse. Maybe I'll read the old thing again...

[Rothbardian Girl]

Yes, and this is where libertarianism diverges from strict Constitutionalism, although I find that in the mainstream, these two ideologies are often confused. (My Gov teacher, for example, ALWAYS assumes all libertarians have no problems with the Constitution, and tends to lump the two groups together.)

Personally, I have no qualms with at least for the short term getting back to Constitutional limits, although I do not care much for the Constitution for various reasons, which I don't feel like explaining in this thread at this point. At least returning to the original intents of the Constitution would be a good stepping-off point.

[Kregisen]

If Ron Paul was President and did away with the federal welfare state which I support could the individual states run their own welfare program if the state votes for it and wants and chooses to have one also since Ron Paul is for state's rights would individual states and local governments be allowed to do this and would the individual states be allowed to run their own welfare programs without the federal government saying they can't do this ? Also if the individual states wanted to run it's own healthcare state run without the federal government would they be allowed to ?

Tip: this is a period → . ←

[acptulsa]

Oh, and even if Ron Paul were president he'd have to have some help from Congress to repeal all those awful laws. So find a federal liberty candidate in your area and support the hell out of him or her!

[juleswin]

I dont think Ron like most libertarians would support welfare even on the state level but he would be against it on the grounds that it is economically unsound and not that it is unconstitutional. Also the problem with such a system is that all the moocher would move into the state and may producers would leave it. That is why you need the whole country before you can even try to implement it

[Brett85]

under the original interpretation of the constitution, yes, states can do whatever they want. they could legalize murder if they wanted to.

You mean the original version of the Constitution that doesn't include the 14th amendment?

[acptulsa]

That is why you need the whole country before you can even try to implement it

Yes and no. Yes, that's why the liberals were so hot to make it federal long ago. But 'before you even try to implement it' is a bit strong. There was quite a lot of local welfare back in the day. Quite a lot. And while there was some 'flight' from such counties, the fact was that it was pretty damned efficient. No frills, and not a lot of money in it to skim.

[Stary Hickory]

I think a coerced welfare state is immoral and leads to corruption and abuse. But I do support it being removed from a federal level where it is unlawful and unconstitutional to the states. I want the deep blue states to reap what they sow, and to give those who don't support such coerced systems a way to not be forced into them. At the state level such programs would be detrimental but at the very least the damage localized and people could simply avoid it.

Right now the US government has a forced monopoly on us, it makes sure we can't escape or they will beat, main, or shoot you. I can't see how anyone can support such a system when the only way it works is by threatening to kill people.

[Vessol]

The violent extortion of property from one individual to give to another individual is always immoral. It doesn't matter if the Federal, State, or some guy in a fine hat does it.

[PermanentSleep]

Yes.
I think you would appreciate the argument Mike Lee makes:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13Mlt7JAKkA

That was one helluva speech.