Brian Miller wrote: BM) Here's what he said about the First Amendment (BM
Yes, I already said that Paul takes the First Amendment literally where it says "Congress shall make no law". I challenged you to quote Paul saying that the rest of the Bill of Rights should not apply to the states. Thanks for failing to do so. BM) Under a Ron Paul society, state governments could [...] (BM Your statement would be true if you had begun it "Under Ron Paul's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, ....". As you wrote it, it remains false. I repeat an actual quote about a "Ron Paul society", which of course you will again ignore: RP) A free country is designed for individuals to deal with the subject of virtue and excellence. Once we defer to the government to get involved in worrying about our own virtue and our excellence and perfect fair economies, it is done at the sacrifice of liberty. If we do that, and sacrifice that liberty, and the job of virtue and excellence is taken over by the government, you can only do that through tyranny. [...] If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values, through church values, but you can't do it through legislation, because force doesn't work. (RP And who did Paul say this to? One of the many Libertarian Party functions that he's spoken at throughout the years? No, he said this straight to the faces of the conservative Christian "Values Voter" conference. BM) Libertarians have no problem enthusiastically embracing limitations on government. (BM Yes, and Ron Paul embraces the Constitution as a limitation on the federal government. QED. I challenge you again: do you or do you not "enthusiastically embrace" the U.N. having the power to enforce as a "limitation" on the American federal government all the provisions of articles 1-21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or sections 6-27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights? (If you're unfamiliar with them, you can for the sake of argument accept my stipulation that those provisions define far better protections of individual rights than does the Bill of Rights.) So how about it? Don't wait for the translation, just answer the question. If you dare. And if you're really feeling brave, I challenge you to assert this: "I want the federal government to do for other civil rights what it's done for substance use and campaign speech and warrantless monitoring and gun rights and 'hate crimes' and reproductive technology and digital copying technology." BM) None of those state capitals could be described, even remotely, as "libertopias." (BM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman David Terry already cited Oregon's assisted suicide law and "a dozen states that have passed medicinal marijuana laws over federal government opposition & suppression". I don't dare mention developments regarding gay marriage rights in Hawaii and Massachusetts, because you might claim you're being lectured by a "straight white suburban guy" about esoterica that he can't possibly understand.
