The Rand Paul Party - The Day We Fight Back..

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Exactly. That's the problem with a "limited government". It always ends in the people that govern deciding the extent of their own power, thus it becomes a "limitless government".

Also, you can't begin a "limited government" that automatically encompasses everybody with or without their consent and say that it has a basis in freedom without growing a Pinnochio nose.
Last I checked; every state that joined the union had to APPLY for statehood. When you're asking to be a part of something, that seems like consent.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Last I checked; every state that joined the union had to APPLY for statehood. When you're asking to be a part of something, that seems like consent.
Last I checked a state is just a smaller version of the nation. States don't differ from nations in that they too, automatically violate individual rights. You are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Please explain to me how it is any better if a state owns the individual or a nation owns the individual?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you know, i don't seem to recall the "principles of limited government" being the driving force..it was "democracy" over "monarchy"..

You're dating yourself with your recollections. Use more skin cream to cover the 300 year old wrinkles.
 

kpmarine

Well-Known Member
Last I checked a state is just a smaller version of the nation. States don't differ from nations in that they too, automatically violate individual rights. You are ignoring the elephant in the room.

Please explain to me how it is any better if a state owns the individual or a nation owns the individual?
You retain the option to opt out of either contract. There is more than one group who has done it. Stop paying taxes, sack up, and defend your right not to associate; it worked well for the Amish last I heard.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Wheat or weed, interference is interference. Best to ignore people with fancy titles that think they can regulate commerce. They simply drive it underground. The idea that a commerce clause even existed rests on the idea that some other party outside of a mutual transaction should intervene. In regular guy speak, this means they decide what you will be able to buy, sell or possess. So, I'd say the very existence of a commerce clause, not the misapplication of it is the culprit.
The commerce clause as written only applied to interstate commerce. They have gone far beyond "misapplication"
 

GOD HERE

Well-Known Member
...Or he could just do what millions of others have done. Ignore the edict from King Obama and refuse to participate in something that takes the labor of some and forcefully applies it to the benefit of others. Hey wait a minute, that's a major component of how slavery works isn't it?
Oh my god Rob Roy, that's exactly how wage slavery works. You may turn out to be a real libertarian after all, and not a voluntaryist knock off.
 

MydogCody

Member
Kudos to Rand Paul. He is not such a big piece of shit that I thought he was.

Hitler would be proud of the way that the U.S. government is treating its citizens.
 

Beagler

Active Member
I feel sssooo much safer with the NSA doing what they do.
Now if an evil RRRAAACCCIIISSSTTT Republican was in da white house I'd be terrified.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You retain the option to opt out of either contract. There is more than one group who has done it. Stop paying taxes, sack up, and defend your right not to associate; it worked well for the Amish last I heard.
Your answer didn't respond to my previous question. The how to opt out is not the question. The question is how can a "contract" exist and be just if it only needs the agreement of one party?

Hint - it can't.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
hey robBoy,

if you ever finish your manifesto, please let me know.

i can always use some kindling and/or toilet paper.

best regards!

unclebuck.
 
Top