Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine
What do you have against the federal government, though?
Sure, federal governments often screw things up, but is there any reason the states would do much better? Hell, if it wasn't for the federal government - the Supreme Court specifically - some states would probably still have racial segregation.
Let's imagine Ron Paul having his way for a moment. What if Massachusetts decided to outlaw abortion, alcohol, sex toys and firearms, while Rhode Island decided to legalize all those things? The Massachusetts laws would be completely ineffective - everyone would just get their guns, booze, vibrators and abortions in the next state.
|
While I understand your point - and this isn't addressing it, keep in mind that, Constitutionally, Mass couldn't outlaw firearms, for it's protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution... so it's reserved for Federal Protection.
Now, to address your point, I don't think anyone here has anything against the Federal Government, per se... but, I, for one, do think that the Federal Government has overstepped it's bounds time and time again by applying power it does not, except for in a rather convoluted sense, Constitutionally have.
American History is dotted with these transgressions - ever since our first President.
Ron Paul, in my estimation, is simply trying to bring the U.S. back to the Constitutional Framers' intent... which I would love to see be given a serious chance in my lifetime.
As far as things being outlawed in one state, but lawful in another state... that's just fine by me - especially when I've given a choice of which state to live in.
I say let those that wish to live in a conception of their ideal environment, so long as it abides by the rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution, have the opportunity to do so.