Quote:
Originally Posted by D
I hear what you're saying, and those are certainly issues that will need to be addressed if this was to ever become a reality and there was to be a Presidentially-inspired 'dressing down' of the Federal Government.... but still, Ron Paul as President would only be one man - with political power to sway opinion, maybe - but, in regards to actual power, he could only delegate what laws are enforced, and veto or sign bills (and let me say that knowing his platform, I feel confident that Ron Paul would limit his scope of power to those duties, and not make up special powers as his term moved forward)... to make a lasting impression, the Legislate would have to be on board with his opinion on a particular topic, as well, repealing old law and writing new law.... so there's the checks and balances in effect.
|
As an outsider, it seems to me that perhaps the most important thing a president does is setting a general course, and determining priorities based on that.
In the case of Ron Paul, that would probably mean initiatives towards reducing pork barrel spending, lower taxes and more privacy. All those are, of course, good things. On the other hand, it would mean a lack of initiatives towards things like universal health care, federal protection of individual's rights or workers' rights, foreign aid, political pressure on oppressive foreign governments, etc.
Practically speaking, a Paul presidency would be most beneficial to those who are fairly wealthy and live in relatively liberal parts of the US. The poor and those living in the Bible Belt would be fucked though, and the US would lose its chance to use its international power to change the world for the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Honestly, I'm ok with that. The potential little inefficiency in exchange for the possibility of much greater freedom is ok in my book. IMHO, there are a lot of wrong turns that the U.S. has made in recent days - limitation on freedom, domestic bungling mixed with foreign ineptitude. I feel something needs to change - and when something's broken in my own life, I always find it useful to look back to the basics for inspiration.
And let's not forget, the constitution can change... if something's broken - if some internet or commercial or freedom-oriented or global-economy-centric issue can best serve the nation - it only takes (after a bit of preparation in congress) 2/3 of the states to agree it's a good idea, and it becomes a law across the land.
|
But why would it bring greater freedom? Leaving things to the states does not necessarily bring freedom. In fact, it may take freedom away, if enough states decide they do not want that particular freedom.
The very subject of this thread is a good example of that - Roe v. Wade. No matter how you look at it, it's an example of the federal government expanding a freedom which many states would have denied.
As I mentioned before, racial segregation is another example. Again, state's rights were limited, resulting in greater individual freedom.
Or, somewhat more controversially, look at creationism versus evolution. By not allowing creationism to be taught in publicly funded schools, the Supreme Court effectively gave students the freedom to learn about the current scientific consensus on the matter without having the stifling burden of religious dogma imposed on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D
Well, personally, I can't think of a single physical item in all the universe that I'm for the "banning" of, so it wouldn't bother me all that much.
As far as those people who want to live in an environment where there's no booze, no abortions, and no loud music after 6PM... with no real chance of such items affecting their lives, I imagine they'd find themselves locating to the areas that, geographically, support their isolationist preferences....
...well, I guess until that gay couple that got married in California moved in next door...  and, when that happens, I figure they're just gonna have to learn to deal with it one way or the other.
I'm a firm believer in the ideal that my rights of expression and liberty end at the exact place that they affect your right to life, liberty or property.
And because of that, if he does receive the nomination, Ron Paul could very well be the first Republican I've ever voted for in a Presidential election. |
I'm not for banning much, either - apart from weapons, anyway. Those make it far too easy for others to infringe upon my right to life, liberty and property.
Not being an American, though, perhaps my biggest problem with Ron Paul is his international isolationism. While the idea of the neocons that the world can be shaped according to their ideals is certainly absurd, the idea that the biggest contemporary global power could somehow isolate itself politically from the rest of the world seems equally absurd.