Quote:
Weena, I'm deleting the group. For a Ron Paul supporter, you're awfully keen on tyranny against those who disagree with you.
I don't think so.
Tyrannical would be deleting/changing posts and subverting those who make them.
I'll accept an argument that it was unprofessional, and an abuse of power. But far too harmless to be tyrannical.
Quote:
2) Argue away/ignore any answers.
To be fair, I think only one person has technically answered one of the questions.
Quote:
without any sort of regulation
I'm not arguing no government. I'm arguing limited government.
The federal government has no legitimate business in regulating things they weren't granted the power to do so. Amazingly enough though, the federal government has legitimate ways of granting itself power (not that they always should), and yet it decides to say hell to that.
The states however, are granted the power to regulate things within their borders. Doesn't mean all the regulations they pass are good, or the one's they don't pass are bad.
Quote:
You know what? I fully support states' rights. I can't wait for the rich states to stop subsidizing the poor ones. I'm entirely in favor of the northeast and the northwest (and maybe Illinois) staying prosperous, while the rest of the country tumbles down into third-world status. I can't wait for Alaska to fail utterly because without massive government handouts, it can't exist. I'm a supporter of Arizona enacting federal-law-defying immigration statutes, so that all the cheap labor moves to less restrictive states, which will then profit at Arizona's expense. I really want Wisconsin to completely repeal union rights, so that its workers leave en masse to the more civilized states and the manufacturers are forced to relocate.
It'll be awesome, because I live in New York.
I think you're making it more doom and gloom sounding than it would be. I also think you're being sarcastic. If you are being sarcastic, you're making more sense than you know.
Like Alaska, maybe we should let it fail. I doubt it would actually fail, but it would certainly downsize. I see it as good thing on a macro level that we aren't giving people incentive to live some place where they can't support themselves. Better those people be capable of fully supporting themselves (which means they are either producing benefit for us, or are zero sum) down south than being living up north and being a burden on the south.
You live in New York, I live in Minnesota. Let's pretend they had real policy difference for a second. For the sake of argument, New York is super liberal, and Minnesota is super conservative.
I want, and got, pure unrestricted capitalism with zero social welfare, and you have highly regulated socialism with boatloads of social welfare. My state's pro life, traditional marriage, etc etc etc, yours is the opposite.
We both are getting what we want, and if we dislike our states enough, we can choose to stop being part of them all together - on a whim, because as Americans we can move to any American state we want with ease. This brings states at least somewhat into a sense of free market discipline.
Isn't that a great thing? You live in a place you want, I live in the place I want? That's the prevailing idea with state's rights. There is no one size fits all. It's the most live and let live system you could hope for. You have your Iron Maiden, I have my Lady Gaga. Governments can best fit the needs and desires of this country's vast and diverse population.
Please note I'm not pro-life, traditional marriage, against all regulation or a fan of Lady Gaga.
