Paulbots' opinions requested

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I want government as close to the poeple as possible. State government wrongs are easier to correct than federal, plus you can move to another state.

In general, I agree with you. But what if they won't? One has to be allowed to have life before they can have liberty and pursue happiness.

The children in the womb cannot move to another state.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

In general, I agree with you. But what if they won't? One has to be allowed to have life before they can have liberty and pursue happiness.

The children in the womb cannot move to another state.

At least a child in a womb that resides in a state which has deemed abortion to be murder would have a chance. Instead, a bad Supreme court decision (in a case not under thier authority) effects the entire united states. That is not federalism. And it can never be the path to a moral society, and morals are in fact, the root of the problem.

 

[Carmelbythecorn]

I like Ron Paul (though I would not consider myself a "Paulbot") and would hold my nose and vote for a Republican candidate. ANYONE but Fearless Leader! I do believe that the Establishment in each party represents two sides of the same Statist coin, but at the very least (and I do mean very least) the Republicans advocate going slower.

We simply have to get past the two-party system in this country to really affect any change. The Progressives (Statists) own both parties!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And it can never be the path to a moral society, and morals are in fact, the root of the problem.

Now this, I totally agree with...I even heard RP mention this when talking about the non-issue of contraceptives in that recent CNN debate.

Deciding what's moral and what's not--that's the sticking point though, isn't it?

 

[rambone]

Deciding what's moral and what's not--that's the sticking point though, isn't it?

Yes. That is why morals are for individuals to decide, not governments to impose.

Laws should be based on individual rights, not somebody else's morality.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes. That is why morals are for individuals to decide, not governments to impose.

Laws should be based on individual rights, not somebody else's morality.

You're right government cannot impose morality. But without morality, you'll never be able to write enough laws to have a civil society.

 

[firehawk1]

Yes. That is why morals are for individuals to decide, not governments to impose.

So if YOUR morality says it's ok to rape my wife or daughter I should be good with that, and just be able to sue you after the fact?

That's the problem with everyone being left to FULLY decide what is right or wrong. That mindset say's there are no absolutes, and there must be absolutes for a civil society. There has never been a society that hasn't established some limits on it's citizens, and this country was not founded without some limits either.

I know you and I have had this discussion before.

 

[hornadylnl]

So if YOUR morality says it's ok to rape my wife or daughter I should be good with that, and just be able to sue you after the fact?

That's the problem with everyone being left to FULLY decide what is right or wrong. That mindset say's there are no absolutes, and there must be absolutes for a civil society. There has never been a society that hasn't established some limits on it's citizens, and this country was not founded without some limits either.

I know you and I have had this discussion before.

Ever heard of property rights?

 

[rambone]

So if YOUR morality says it's ok to rape my wife or daughter I should be good with that, and just be able to sue you after the fact?

That's the problem with everyone being left to FULLY decide what is right or wrong. That mindset say's there are no absolutes, and there must be absolutes for a civil society. There has never been a society that hasn't established some limits on it's citizens, and this country was not founded without some limits either.

I know you and I have had this discussion before.

The second half of my post said:

Laws should be based on individual rights, not somebody else's morality.

Hopefully that statement solidly shuts down the notion that I'm advocating a society of rapists.

 

[sepe]

The second half of my post said:

Laws should be based on individual rights, not somebody else's morality.

Hopefully that statement solidly shuts down the notion that I'm advocating a society of rapists.

Well, you just ruined any chance of me getting a "date"...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The second half of my post said:

Laws should be based on individual rights, not somebody else's morality.

No right should be limited? Completely unfettered?

 

[firehawk1]

Hopefully that statement solidly shuts down the notion that I'm advocating a society of rapists.

Sorry that was NOT my intent to infer you were ok with rape. I think you knew that though....

 

[firehawk1]

No right should be limited? Completely unfettered?

And what would someone call total unfettered freedom, and allowing no one to place limits on their "right" to do whatever they want when they want, and answer to no one.

 

[squirrelhntr]

I believe the founders realized you can not legislate morality. But, you also can not govern amoral people either. IMO our society is suffering from rapid moral decline.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And what would someone call total unfettered freedom, and allowing no one to place limits on their "right" to do whatever they want when they want, and answer to no one.

Anarchy?

Life on a deserted island?

Being a 2 year old?

 

[firehawk1]

But, you also can not govern amoral people either.

Here is one of the main reasons the country is headed for the scrap heap of history.

 

[firehawk1]

Anarchy?

Life on a deserted island?

Being a 2 year old?

And we have a winner with answer number 1. Number 2 and 3 receive honorable mention.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

And we have a winner with answer number 1. Number 2 and 3 receive honorable mention.

 

[rambone]

No right should be limited? Completely unfettered?

The moment you start fettering your rights, they become privileges.

And what would someone call total unfettered freedom, and allowing no one to place limits on their "right" to do whatever they want when they want, and answer to no one.

If individual rights are protected, that would mean that victimizing other people is not permitted.

Doesn't sound that lawless to me.

Anarchy?

Life on a deserted island?

Being a 2 year old?

A misrepresentation of what I'm advocating.

 

[firehawk1]

The moment you start fettering your rights, they become privileges.


If individual rights are protected, that would mean that victimizing other people is not permitted.

Doesn't sound that lawless to me.

A misrepresentation of what I'm advocating.

I'm curious as to how one would "unfetter" everyone's rights by not allowing some to victimize others in some cases? If I feel abusing women is ok exactly WHO is going to tell me it isn't my right? Uncontrolled freedom/rights is an all or nothing thing. Once one starts to tell someone that this or that isn't allowed it becomes a privilege doesn't it? This is where morality come into the picture as do absolutes as in right and wrong.

I understand what you want/espouse, but it isn't possible in the real world IMO. Society has to place some limits on things, when it doesn't or the decision is made to no longer enforce those limits society falls apart. Isn't that exactly what we are seeing now?