Need discussion points... any way to win this voter over?

[brumans]

The discussion of Ron Paul came up and said "he's not my candidate"

I asked her what she didn't agree with Ron Paul on and she said:

"I respect the different approach to conservatism he brings to the table but there are many issues I can't get past with Dr. Paul. I believe women have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion. I believe some measure of affirmative action (in addition to other systemic interventions) continue to be necessary to address the racial inequality in America. I believe in a social safety net to keep people out of poverty and feel universal health care is long overdue. I also believe those that receive the most benefit from the public commons should be obligated to pay a proportional rate of taxes for what they receive from it (higher taxes for the rich). On those and many other domestic issues I disagree with the good doctor. (Also, am I the only one troubled by the support he receives from David Duke and other Neo-Nazi, militia folks?)
All that said, I am really happy that Dr. Paul is mobilizing people who are against the war, for a non-interventionist foreign policy, and demanding civil liberties at home. I like that he is winning debates (according to TV polls) and endorsements by college Republicans and the Sean Hannity's of the world don't know what to do about it. I really do wish him the best of luck. It would just take a hell of a lot to get me to vote for him in the general election. Well, against Clinton I would do it in a heartbeat.
As for myself, I guess I like the elfin candidate with the wife everyone keeps talking about. He'd be dreamy. Unfortunately, dreamers and politics don't mix well in this climate."


Is there any discussion points I can argue to possibly win this person over? She is smart, so she's done her research and just doesn't agree with Dr. Paul on some issues.

[BLS]

Your friend suffers from Liberalism. Flat out.

If you can't convert her, which I doubt you can, sell her on the Iraq war and that he's the only person who will end it asap.

[American]

Who is this person supporting might be a better angle to go at this.

But it would require her to do some research either way, the sale of socialism sounds good on the surface it just doesnt work. Sit her down and have her watch some RP videos, that will do the trick. peek her interest, make her want to fin out. you will not talk her into anything though,.

[Broadlighter]

I wouldn't try to win this voter over. She has some fundamental philosophical differences with Dr. Paul about what the role of government ought to be.

My only counter argument is that before we can even begin to address the issues that are important to her, we have to deal with the monetary system (Federal Reserve and IRS). She may look at you as though you dropped in from another planet, but a good viewing of "Fiat Empire" should help anyone connect the dots. The monetary system is the key to everything and this is why Ron Paul's candidacy is so vitally important to this election. No other candidates are addressing this issue in as meaningful a way as Dr. Paul. This is the trump issue and if she can't see that, there's absolutely no convincing her.

[beerista]

The discussion of Ron Paul came up and said "he's not my candidate"

I asked her what she didn't agree with Ron Paul on and she said:

"I respect the different approach to conservatism he brings to the table but there are many issues I can't get past with Dr. Paul. I believe women have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion. I believe some measure of affirmative action (in addition to other systemic interventions) continue to be necessary to address the racial inequality in America. I believe in a social safety net to keep people out of poverty and feel universal health care is long overdue. I also believe those that receive the most benefit from the public commons should be obligated to pay a proportional rate of taxes for what they receive from it (higher taxes for the rich). On those and many other domestic issues I disagree with the good doctor. (Also, am I the only one troubled by the support he receives from David Duke and other Neo-Nazi, militia folks?)
All that said, I am really happy that Dr. Paul is mobilizing people who are against the war, for a non-interventionist foreign policy, and demanding civil liberties at home. I like that he is winning debates (according to TV polls) and endorsements by college Republicans and the Sean Hannity's of the world don't know what to do about it. I really do wish him the best of luck. It would just take a hell of a lot to get me to vote for him in the general election. Well, against Clinton I would do it in a heartbeat.
As for myself, I guess I like the elfin candidate with the wife everyone keeps talking about. He'd be dreamy. Unfortunately, dreamers and politics don't mix well in this climate."


Is there any discussion points I can argue to possibly win this person over? She is smart, so she's done her research and just doesn't agree with Dr. Paul on some issues.

Yikes. I don't see much progress coming on this one, unless you can sell her on the war angle. I can tell you from experience that you can make progress with some people on some of these issues. But unless you first get her to come around on some core issues, she's right: Ron Paul is not her candidate.
I'd try pitching federalism to her. None of her issues are prohibited to the states and you may make some headway in convincing her that she'd have an easier time of getting her way on the state level. A real liberal (and she sounds sincerely liberal) has a hard time honestly defending the stifling of divergent opinions. Doesn't mean they won't do it, but it's hard to do it honestly.
It's a long shot, but we're all about long shots here. Good luck.

[ronpaulyourmom]

Your only hope of winning this argument is by talking to her about hidden inflation, the death of the dollar, and how this basically makes poor and middle class people even more poor. Mention that Bush's overspending, which would only be perpetuated by a democratic president, has reduced the value of the dollar by 40% against other major currencies. Ask her how a poor person is supposed to buy things like food and clothes when they effectively cost so much more because of the decreased purchasing power of the dollar.

You have to explain how this is a fundamental consequence of big government spending, and that the best solution is an unfettered, un-corporatized free market. In other words, you have to convince her that liberalism actually hurts poor people and promotes inequality through not-so-obvious economic effects. Good Luck.

[iddo]

Well you could say that nonintervention is the crucial issue, to prevent spreading this war into a bigger disaster, with consequences that no one can predict.

Regarding support from white nationalists etc., as RP says they chose to support him and his message, not the other way around, and his message is clear ("Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism..."). If they like this message of freedom and civil liberties, good for them.

Regarding domestic issues, you can show her for example http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#On_abortion to make the point that he is consistent and sincere in his positions, and that pro-war + pro-torture + pro-life is a contradiction, so RP being pro-life is really true, unlike the other Republicans who mean that they are "pro-American-life" when they say "pro-life", because they don't consider the massive deaths that they cause in other countries to contradict their pro-life position.

[Nash]

Your only hope of winning this argument is by talking to her about hidden inflation, the death of the dollar, and how this basically makes poor and middle class people even more poor. Mention that Bush's overspending, which would only be perpetuated by a democratic president, has reduced the value of the dollar by 40% against other major currencies. Ask her how a poor person is supposed to buy things like food and clothes when they effectively cost so much more because of the decreased purchasing power of the dollar.

You have to explain how this is a fundamental consequence of big government spending, and that the best solution is an unfettered, un-corporatized free market. In other words, you have to convince her that liberalism actually hurts poor people and promotes inequality through not-so-obvious economic effects. Good Luck.

You can hit her on monetary policy like the above poster stated. You can also talk about how the federal income tax takes money away from state governments where they might be better used.

Are you in a liberal state? If your state wants to make a socialist utopia and provide free healthcare for everyone the states would have more cash to do these things if we're not shipping money to washington to fight war overseas.

[cjhowe]

Throw a copy of The Law at her, close the door and run.

[RebelYell]

If I were you I would acknowledge her desire to help people, but then point out that government just doesn't seem to work as a method of achieveing her goals:

In the name of helping us all, government has achieved

* A social security system where, instead of saving and investing our contributions, the politicians have spent them all and replaced them with IOUs. Instead of enhancing our retirement security, the government has stolen the money we could have used to provide for our own retirements and left us with nothing!

* A welfare system, which was supposed to help people escape poverty, that has instead turned into a poverty trap that spans generations.

* A central bank supposedly instituted to fight inflation which has overseen the dollar losing 97% of its purchasing power. At the same time our debt has grown so large that it can never be repaid and our economy can only continue to operate because foreigners are willing to lend us over $2billion a day.

I think it's also worth pointing out (if you can do it diplomatically) that it's one thing to set an example of generous behavior and hope that others follow, but that it's quite different to demand at the point of a gun that others who have not harmed you but merely declined to assist you in your aims, behave as you wish irrespective of what their conscience dictates.

If freedom exists, by its very nature, it implies that everybody will not behave as you wish and this is a good thing because you do not have to behave as others wish. If you allow government to dictate to people against their will, it is only a matter of time before the government starts dictating to you against your will, and in the end nothing good can come from the application of force to peaceful people.

Most people intuitively understand a lot of this if you use everday examples. Is it right for one kid to approach another kid in a playground and steal her candy? No of course it's not. Is it right for five kids to form a group and steal the sixth kid's candy because the five dont have any? Again, most people know that's wrong and would punish the five kids. Why is it different for adults?

Still - the others on this thread are correct - if she's got as far through life as she has, you probably won't change her mind. She's clearly fairly immune to thinking or she would have worked out all the inherent contradictions in her position.

RebelYell

[bunklocoempire]

If I were you I would acknowledge her desire to help people, but then point out that government just doesn't seem to work as a method of achieveing her goals:

In the name of helping us all, government has achieved

* A social security system where, instead of saving and investing our contributions, the politicians have spent them all and replaced them with IOUs. Instead of enhancing our retirement security, the government has stolen the money we could have used to provide for our own retirements and left us with nothing!

* A welfare system, which was supposed to help people escape poverty, that has instead turned into a poverty trap that spans generations.

* A central bank supposedly instituted to fight inflation which has overseen the dollar losing 97% of its purchasing power. At the same time our debt has grown so large that it can never be repaid and our economy can only continue to operate because foreigners are willing to lend us over $2billion a day.

I think it's also worth pointing out (if you can do it diplomatically) that it's one thing to set an example of generous behavior and hope that others follow, but that it's quite different to demand at the point of a gun that others who have not harmed you but merely declined to assist you in your aims, behave as you wish irrespective of what their conscience dictates.

If freedom exists, by its very nature, it implies that everybody will not behave as you wish and this is a good thing because you do not have to behave as others wish. If you allow government to dictate to people against their will, it is only a matter of time before the government starts dictating to you against your will, and in the end nothing good can come from the application of force to peaceful people.

Most people intuitively understand a lot of this if you use everday examples. Is it right for one kid to approach another kid in a playground and steal her candy? No of course it's not. Is it right for five kids to form a group and steal the sixth kid's candy because the five dont have any? Again, most people know that's wrong and would punish the five kids. Why is it different for adults?

Still - the others on this thread are correct - if she's got as far through life as she has, you probably won't change her mind. She's clearly fairly immune to thinking or she would have worked out all the inherent contradictions in her position.

RebelYell

Excellent response RebelYell. Especially the everyday examples. Keep trying with her brumans. You may simply try freedom=responsibility, if one cares to be free one has to accept responsibility for ones own self, family, neighbors/neighborhood, county, state, country. If one wants to hand over their moneys and rights and responsibilities to government, they are living in the wrong Country and under the wrong constitution. A basterdized constitution (ignoring/comprimising) is why our Country is in the mess it's in. Good luck, personal responsibilty aint to popular.

bunkloco

[freesoul]

The discussion of Ron Paul came up and said "he's not my candidate"

I asked her what she didn't agree with Ron Paul on and she said:

"I also believe those that receive the most benefit from the public commons should be obligated to pay a proportional rate of taxes for what they receive from it (higher taxes for the rich).

Please explain this to me and answer the following:

what is 'benefitting from the public commons'? - the way I interpret that is those who use more of government services. How does that equate with being "rich" or having a higher income? Don't people with more wealth or income pay their own way more often?

Perhaps she means those who work for the government should be taxed at a higher rate- employees, contractors, etc- I LOVE IT !! :D

[RonPaulIsGood]

The discussion of Ron Paul came up and said "he's not my candidate"

I asked her what she didn't agree with Ron Paul on and she said:

"I respect the different approach to conservatism he brings to the table but there are many issues I can't get past with Dr. Paul. I believe women have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion. I believe some measure of affirmative action (in addition to other systemic interventions) continue to be necessary to address the racial inequality in America. I believe in a social safety net to keep people out of poverty and feel universal health care is long overdue. I also believe those that receive the most benefit from the public commons should be obligated to pay a proportional rate of taxes for what they receive from it (higher taxes for the rich). On those and many other domestic issues I disagree with the good doctor. (Also, am I the only one troubled by the support he receives from David Duke and other Neo-Nazi, militia folks?)
All that said, I am really happy that Dr. Paul is mobilizing people who are against the war, for a non-interventionist foreign policy, and demanding civil liberties at home. I like that he is winning debates (according to TV polls) and endorsements by college Republicans and the Sean Hannity's of the world don't know what to do about it. I really do wish him the best of luck. It would just take a hell of a lot to get me to vote for him in the general election. Well, against Clinton I would do it in a heartbeat.
As for myself, I guess I like the elfin candidate with the wife everyone keeps talking about. He'd be dreamy. Unfortunately, dreamers and politics don't mix well in this climate."

1. Affirmative action creates inequality in wages
2. Universal Healthcare is not as efficient as it sounds
3. Fidel Castro and the Communist Party of China endorses Obama and Democrats
4. Babies born as early as five months survive, so late term abortions are useless.
5. Only three Democrats oppose the war. The rest are liars.

Is there any discussion points I can argue to possibly win this person over? She is smart, so she's done her research and just doesn't agree with Dr. Paul on some issues.


Please explain this to me and answer the following:

what is 'benefitting from the public commons'? - the way I interpret that is those who use more of government services. How does that equate with being "rich" or having a higher income? Don't people with more wealth or income pay their own way more often?

Perhaps she means those who work for the government should be taxed at a higher rate- employees, contractors, etc- I LOVE IT !! :D

This is a complete ideological "moral" argument. It does not argue "economic efficiency", economic growth, and reducing "hidden taxes" for cutting taxes for the rich.

[brumans]

I took notes of what you guys suggested and replied to her.

She replied back saying:

----

The alternative to government is privatized corporations that are mandated to focus on the bottom-line and not the public good. For example, if you look at government funded insurance like medicare, the administrative expense is about 3 or 4 percent, where for private HMO's the administrative costs are around 10 and 15% because so many pockets are being lined along the way. Care is routinely denied because the less care doled out the more money the company makes. Or, look at Iraq. About half the US forces are private contractors who are paid three times more than enlisted soldiers, yet they routinely do shitty work, are completely unaccountable, while the CEO's and shareholders roll in all that wasted tax payer money, that helps ensure there is no money in social security (so it will out of necessity be privatized), helps ensure our schools fail (so people feel disempowered and are easier to manipulate), helping ensure a climate of scarcity in the largest economy in the world.

Libertarianism starts with the premise of protecting people from government, but ultimately leaves them open to private tyrannies, because there is nothing to intervene on the people's behalf. Look at any country that privatizes public services such as water or Social Security, prices go up and service goes down because the companies that take over are designed and mandated to make money not provide for the needs and welfare of the people. Think of Enron in California, they purposely shut down plants to lower the supply of energy and ultimately increase their profits.

Beyond simply helping people, I am interested in much more radical changes, changes that are essential to grow an informed and engaged public who can lead themselves to the promise land rather than be led to the slaughterhouse in Iraq or the slow death of a life without meaning or purpose. The problem with government has always been its use by the wealthy and powerful to maintain the rule of the wealthy and powerful. So much needs to change, just to get to the point where real change is possible. Giving up on government essentially means it will remain a tool of the rich and powerful to continue aggregating more wealth and power to itself.

I have to admit my understanding of currency and central banks is hazy at best, but borrowing so much money for endless war and military build-up, while simultaneously doing away with government protections that kept good jobs in America, and cutting taxes on those who can most afford to pay them sounds like a recipe for economic collapse, and many feel we are on the verge of that sort of fall right now.

Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism because is the merger of the state with private corporations. Mussilini said something to that effect and I think that is a apt description of where we are headed (if not our current state of affairs) if we don't put the breaks on and stop the insanity. We need to start moving from a "ME" society, epitomized by libertarian thought, to a more enlightened "WE" society founded on humanistic values of social responsibility AND civil liberties.

Did I mention I am a bit of a dreamer?

----

Any suggestions?

[Nash]

Your friend is confused about linking Privatization to Libertarian policy positions. Ron Paul does not want to "privatize" anything. He seeks to get the government out completely. Privatization is essentially taking taxpayer dollars and handing them over to private corporate interests to do the "public good". Ron Paul doesn't want to give taxpayer dollars to anyone and seeks to tax nobody. In fact, Hilary Clinton and John Edwards both essentially want to "privatize" healthcare with their coverage plans because they seek to use tax dollars to pay for medical treatment for the American people. Where is this money going to go? Right into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies or HMO plans who win the contracts. Even if there aren't designated contracts we are basically setting aside money against individual will to pay off the players in this industry. If you want a plan where healthcare is actually nationalized then look to Dennis Kucinich's plan. That is complete government control of healthcare instead of the "privatization" sought by the democrat front-runners.

Ron Paul does not seek to "Privatize" Healthcare or Social Security he seeks to get the government out completely. This means that corporate entities get no earmarked money and no contracts at all. The money stays with the people instead. The reason we have rampant cronyism in government is because we keep sending them money every year and they keep handing it out to special interest groups under the guise of federal programs that are "for the people" but never end up that way. They are basically just corporate handouts. Both parties are guilty of this.

While the administrative costs may indeed be "lower" with government run programs the top to bottom efficiency is generally far worse and so is the quality. Who are these programs intended to serve? Are they supposed to serve the "people" or are they supposed to serve the government employees working under them? This gets far more messy when expanded to the federal level and farther away from the actual constituents. Programs like these tend to have far more oversight and efficiency the closer they are to the voters. Is it not more fair to keep them local so the voters these programs directly impact have the greatest voice in how they are run? Is that not more just than robbing an individual in Los Angeles to serve the needs of an individual in Florida? Our votes are diluted the bigger the program is. The more local they are the greater the voice each individual voter has, the farther away from the epicenter the less our votes actually matter.

The beauty of a Ron Paul administration is we can keep these programs close to home and close to the people who have a vested interest for maximum efficiency and oversight. If cronyism exists it is far more visible locally than when we send it into a black hole that is Washington. It is also separated and we don't "put all our eggs in one basket".

[bdmarti]

I believe women have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to have an abortion.

That is an understandable position to take, however it's not the federal government's place to say anything about it.

If one considers the matter a crime then it's similar to murder and falls within the states dominion.

What's worse is when the federal government spends money on such things though.

You could also try this approach to get the benefits of federalism accross:
Pick something, anything, that you think the government is not supposed to be doing and in fact is morally repugnant to you. Maybe the war in Iraq fits this, or maybe the suspention of habeus corpus would be a match, or maybe you find torture repugnant.

Now, if the federal government started doing exactly that thing wouldn't you be upset? What if you further felt it was unconstitutional, wouldn't you want it stopped?

Now what if that thing wasn't happening everywhere, but rather was only happening in your town. Would you try to change policy there? Would changing policy at the local level be easier or harder than at the federal level?
If you failed to change policy, would you move? If only Texas was paying for the war in Iraq, and you hated that war, would you move?

This is why the federal government is supposed to do very little. We don't all agree on all the things a government should do or how it should do them.
The federal government is meant to be a least common denomonator of governments and provide defense, a post office, trade agrements and treaties and not too much else. Most details in law and life are supposed to be left to the people. The more power you let the federal government have, the more often people are forced to do and pay for things they find morally repugnant because they can't change policy at such a high level, nor can they move anywhere to get away from a federal policy.


I believe some measure of affirmative action (in addition to other systemic interventions) continue to be necessary to address the racial inequality in America.

That's a fine belief also, but the devil is in the details.
Let's say we agree that those less fortunate in society should be givin a helping hand. What metric would one use to determine who is less fortunate? Skin color hardly seems fair.

Let's say that 80% of green people are poor and 20% of blue people are poor.
If we say that green people get special treatment then each of those 20% of wealthy green people will take slots from more deserving poor blue people.

Try as you might, you won't come up with any system of affirmative action that is in fact fair.

This is another case where citizens should be empowered, and encouraged, to vote with their feet and move to where conditions are most favorable to them.

If the states each had different laws dealing with race and affirmative action then we could in fact see what programs at least work the best even if they are unfair. In our currenct situation, a lack of competition ensures that we can't gather any data on other means of addressing the inequalities that exist in society. If congress screws up, and they usually do, and they draft a law that is far from optimal in addressing the problem then we have to live with that mistake and it becomes very difficult to fix the mistake because it exists at a federal level.



I believe in a social safety net to keep people out of poverty and feel universal health care is long overdue.

There wasn't much poverty prior to social security. People weren't flooding into the country by the millions because of our massive poverty.

and besides...poverty is an arbitrary term. people in Bangladesh live on something like $100 per year, and yet a person in the US is often considered in poverty if they make many thousands of dollars.

Let's again agree that we don't want to see people suffer and that at a minimum we should see to it people are fed and sheltered if we are able.

Beyond that the details again get pretty messy. How much should we spend on these poor people? How should we deliver the aid?

Sure, you can again trust congress to be competent and corruption free enough to come up with the best system to deliver aid.
Chances are they'll screw it up though and you won't be able to fix it.

Universal health care is a misnomer. You can't get away from paying for health care and such a concept certainly doesn't exist anywhere in the constitution. I've read the enumerated powers of congress many times and health care isn't mentioned or even implied.

Any system of health care that you might hold up as an example of what we "should" have is implemented by a country about the size (population) of a US state. This goes to show you that should the people want such a system, they can have it at a state level. Those people that don't want such a system can fight it or vote with their feet.

How is it moral to force others to pay for your health care? How is it moral to force doctors, nurses, dentists, and so on to work longer hours and for less money than they otherwise would make if the market were free?
It isn't moral to do such things.

Sure, in Canada and some European countries you can get "free" healthcare, but the lines are long and very often people from those countries come here because they can't wait or their "optional" health care problem will never be addressed within their country's system.






I also believe those that receive the most benefit from the public commons should be obligated to pay a proportional rate of taxes for what they receive from it (higher taxes for the rich).


A proportional tax on unearned wealth sounds great...like corporate taxes or capital gains or interest earned.

A proportional tax on wages and salaries like the bulk of our personal income tax is an absurd abomination.

It doesn't make any sense to punish the person who "earns" the most wealth by taxing them the most. This discourages extra effort as the return on your effort becomes less and less the more wealth you produce. It's important to differentiate "earned" income like wages from "unearned" income like interest or dividends. They have a big moral difference.

Why would it be moral for the government to take 100% of my wages at it's whim? It wouldn't be moral, and in fact that would be slavery. At what percent exactly would it cease to be slavery? 99%? 50%?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that even if I spend 1% of my time working to pay a tax that I don't agree with (or be sent to jail) that is a form of "involuntary servitude" and is by it's very nature both immoral and unconstitutional.

Sure, if you didn't tax wages you'd still have a few CEOs and such that had salaries of millions of dollars. Whoopiteedoo. The real wealth accumulation problem we have is with aristocracy and their ability to remain perpetually wealthy because of "unearned" wealth such as interest. If you focused taxes on things like interest and dividends then you'd certainly be taxing the wealthy far more heavily than the poor...which is what you want...and at the same time you avoid the moral problem of involuntary servitude...and you avoid the marketplace paradox of discouraging the best workers from achiving all that they can.

[bdmarti]

The alternative to government is privatized corporations that are mandated to focus on the bottom-line and not the public good.

says who?

Corporations exist because of government. You can't have much of a corporation absent government.

What about sole proprieterships, parnerships, local government owned, or even cooperatives? Those also exist and can do any job a corporation can do and often do it better than a corporation can and at a more personal level.


...shareholders roll in all that wasted tax payer money, that helps ensure there is no money in social security (so it will out of necessity be privatized), helps ensure our schools fail (so people feel disempowered and are easier to manipulate), helping ensure a climate of scarcity in the largest economy in the world.

We agree there is massive waste in government. Why would you think that more government programs will eliminate the waste?
Allowing congress to spend money on so many things they aren't supposed to do in the first place CAUSES the government waste!

If the federal government didn't spend such massive amounts of money then you wouldn't have such massive amounts of corruption and you wouldn't have such stupidly large amounts of money spent on elections and you wouldn't have the lobbiests all lined up to get their slice of the pie and you wouldn't have all the politicians beholden to the special interests!

It's because congress tries to do more than it was ever intended to do that we have such ugly politics today!

If we just stuck to doing the few things listed in the constitution there would be so much less incentive to buy politicians and there would be far less corruption and there would be more money available at the state level to do any and all programs the citizens of each state might desire. Freedom to move from state to state would act to temper any one state from becoming too corrupt or overtaxed or overly wastful.

the key is to push the power down the ladder, and not up.

suggesting the federal government should handle so much seems naive. Congress isn't smart enough. Really. They aren't. Chances are good that even with the best of intentions they'll screw things up.



Libertarianism starts with the premise of protecting people from government, but ultimately leaves them open to private tyrannies, because there is nothing to intervene on the people's behalf.

Uh...not really....but anyway...Ron Paul would like to see well enforced laws and well functioning courts. He's a firm beleiver in the rule of law. DOn't forget that laws exist at state levels as well as federal. Even if the federal government say ended the war on drugs each state has plenty of laws against drugs. There are redunant state and federal laws on practically everything except where states have been forbidden or overridden by the federal government.

allowing the republic to act as a republic doesn't decend all the states into anarchy or anything like that.


Look at any country that privatizes public services such as water or Social Security, prices go up and service goes down because the companies that take over are designed and mandated to make money not provide for the needs and welfare of the people. Think of Enron in California, they purposely shut down plants to lower the supply of energy and ultimately increase their profits.

again...just because the federal government isn't doing something doesn't mean a state couldn't do something. there is little reason not to push the power to the states...unless you are a corrupt politician hungry for power...then that's a different matter.


The problem with government has always been its use by the wealthy and powerful to maintain the rule of the wealthy and powerful. So much needs to change, just to get to the point where real change is possible. Giving up on government essentially means it will remain a tool of the rich and powerful to continue aggregating more wealth and power to itself.

uhm...no.

Stop allowing the rich to easily pad their pockets with fat government contracts. (by cutting spending and government programs)
Stop allowing the rich to produce currency from thin air and lend out 9 times their deposits at interest. (by killing the FED and allowing alternative currencies and requiring 100% reserve banking)
Tax corporations and unearned income and stop taxing wages. (kill the IRS)

Those things will temper the power of the rich far more than creating more government programs for them to leach off of.



Fascism should more rightly be called corporatism because is the merger of the state with private corporations. Mussilini said something to that effect and I think that is a apt description of where we are headed (if not our current state of affairs) if we don't put the breaks on and stop the insanity. We need to start moving from a "ME" society, epitomized by libertarian thought, to a more enlightened "WE" society founded on humanistic values of social responsibility AND civil liberties.


I agree about how we are on the path to fascism, but disagree completely on what needs to be done about it.

Allowing the government to get bigger and take over things like health care will not move us away from fascism.

As noble as your intentions might be, and as much as I agree we "should" be more of a "we" society, it just won't work very well at such a large scale. The population is too big. We don't, won't, and never will all agree on what to do or how to do it. The more minorities are forced into programs they dispise, the more dissent we will suffer from.

I object to universal health care. Maybe you object to churches distributing aid. Maybe my neighbor hates the idea of unlimited education dollars for all...and yet if that's what the federal government does, then we are all suffering and feeling oppressed...and since we can't move to where there is a differnt policy, and we can't change the "majority" opinion on that one issue, we're just doomed to each suffer under the tyranny of the majority!

The answer is to repect our republic and return the power to the states and the people.

State governments really are quite capable of doing a lot...especially if their citizens all had 30% of their incomes back in their pockets.

Take away power from the federal government and you will dilute the power of the corporations greatly.