The Rand Paul Party - The Day We Fight Back..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Everyone doesn't have to agree. That's the point. All they have to agree on is you do what you want and reciprocably you allow others the same. Only when that concept is violated is there a demonstrable harm. I know concepts like that may be beyond your comprehension, so rather than examine them critically, you miscast them.
So, what specifically do you disagree with in the non aggression principle oh under the bridge dweller?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
but if i don't agree to everything then i am a slave and lysander spooner is unhappy thus i can't get erect and bulbous.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
don't say that!
rawn might have had the newsletters, but rend has had plenty of white supremacists working for him, and they both still actively coordinate with A3P. and rend is also opposed to civil rights like his daddy.
so there's still plenty of rend racism to love.
you know, i don't seem to recall the "principles of limited government" being the driving force..it was "democracy" over "monarchy"..
londonfog
Well-Known Member
very reason I just visit from time to time
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
DD is correct, America was founded on limited government.
Many articles and amendments to the Constitution, devise a limited federal government, restrained to specific powers.
In a democracy, the majority cannot be restrained and can impose its will on the minority.
A constitutional government (republic) is where a constitution guards certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by a majority or the government.
Our founders had the foresight to construct a government consisting of three separate branches to keep the government in check and prevent the abuse of power like we are experiencing today.
guess it doesn't take much to figure this one out anymore
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Don't you actually mean, you only want a conversation with those who agree with you?
I would say, because that is what you are limited to.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what abuse of power are we experiencing today, socky McFistuptheass?
i could ask you the same however, when i post with citation in a debate, it's only fair to acknowledge rather than steam roll over and ignore the opinion.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
The abuse of the commerce clause has been pretty severe for some time.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That was the idea. Except you can't have "limited government" that purports to encompass everybody in a given geographical area whether they gave their individual consent or not.
If that were true, the consent of the individuals governed would not be required, thus you would not have a limited government, you would have a government like all the rest, one based in coercion. A "limited government" based in coercion is kind of oxymoronic.
Lysander Spooner called and said he wants to talk to you.
Rob Roy
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.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Originally, the commerce clause was intended to restrict congress from dictating what you were going to buy sell or posses; unless it actually causes some sort of issues between states or countries.
Rob Roy
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.