PaulConventionWV
12-11-2011, 01:03 PM
http://o5.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/600x450/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/5f7b50f83ddb6ef0b13990fdaf8651d7
What’s more, it is hard to imagine anyone else, candidate or not making a statement such as that. Imagine Ron Paul, instead of debating the issues of liberty and arguing for the Constitution, defending himself by betting a million dollars in taxpayer money that he’s right. According to Mitt Romney’s senior advisor, that would be a perfectly acceptable practice considering how strong the argument is.
However, the real issue isn’t the money that Romney bet. It is really the individual mandates that is the problem, as Rick Perry concluded. Money will not and cannot effectively defend you from the attacks of your opponents. If you are in a court case, do you pay off the prosecution, or do you rather plead your case based on your conception of the law and the facts of the case?
The point is that Romney forced the people of his state, through a mandate, to purchase a product or service. If you want real liberty solutions, then individual mandates are not the way to go. People’s freedoms are being eroded ever day, and yet Romney feels quite comfortable defending the status quo by declaring it is acceptable for the government, in any instance, to force someone to buy something. The very idea of this role of government is antithetical to liberty because it permits the government to claim ownership over almost anything that the citizens claim as their property. If the government can force you to buy a certain product or service through coercion, then what can it not do through force?
more at link:
http://libertysolutions.org/2011/12/11/78/
What’s more, it is hard to imagine anyone else, candidate or not making a statement such as that. Imagine Ron Paul, instead of debating the issues of liberty and arguing for the Constitution, defending himself by betting a million dollars in taxpayer money that he’s right. According to Mitt Romney’s senior advisor, that would be a perfectly acceptable practice considering how strong the argument is.
However, the real issue isn’t the money that Romney bet. It is really the individual mandates that is the problem, as Rick Perry concluded. Money will not and cannot effectively defend you from the attacks of your opponents. If you are in a court case, do you pay off the prosecution, or do you rather plead your case based on your conception of the law and the facts of the case?
The point is that Romney forced the people of his state, through a mandate, to purchase a product or service. If you want real liberty solutions, then individual mandates are not the way to go. People’s freedoms are being eroded ever day, and yet Romney feels quite comfortable defending the status quo by declaring it is acceptable for the government, in any instance, to force someone to buy something. The very idea of this role of government is antithetical to liberty because it permits the government to claim ownership over almost anything that the citizens claim as their property. If the government can force you to buy a certain product or service through coercion, then what can it not do through force?
more at link:
http://libertysolutions.org/2011/12/11/78/