Rand Paul hearts the Civil Rights Act

IRHari

IRHari

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
Question: Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Rand Paul: I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains and I'm all in favor of that.

Questioner: But...?

Rand Paul: (nervous laugh) You had to ask me the "but." um.. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners - I abhor racism - I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that's most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.
Click to expand...

I think the worst part about this is how much it is going to help his opponent. While I feel his position is abhorrent (that feds shouldn't ban private businesses from discriminating), I don't think he's a racist or he believes in segregation/discrimination.

I just think it's batshit to think that the fed should be hands off on almost everything. You'd think if that extreme anti-fed-gov't ideology would put you in the position of defending private businesses discriminating, you'd take a step back and go 'ok maybe it's not a good idea in ALL instances...'

By the way, please correct me if I drew the wrong conclusions from Paul's message. I just saw Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow and they had a very civil discussion about it.
 
IMHO it is dog whistle politics, he knows what he is saying and the racist knuckledraggers get it as well.

Now before the idiot brigade gets here spouting off about what small business owners get to do or not do, there are exemptions for those truly small businesses employing less (I'm pretty sure) than 50 people.
 
I heard that interview on the radio earlier. He also said that the ADA goes too far, that if a person has a disability and works in a multi-floor building, they should just be given an office on the first floor rather than the business making the building handicap accessible. That doesn't even take into account if the person has to travel to different floors of the building.

I don't buy this act, people like him know who they appeal to and don't appeal to. Whats the term, baby steps?
 
A libertarian that isn't pro-choice or pro-gay marriage isn't a libertarian. He's just a nutter trading on daddy's name. A perfect fit for the Republican party.
 
[quote name='speedracer']A libertarian that isn't pro-choice or pro-gay marriage isn't a libertarian. He's just a nutter trading on daddy's name. A perfect fit for the Republican party.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, most libertarians would object to the governments involvement in marriage (homosexual or heterosexual), which moots gay marriage as a political issue.
 
[quote name='msdmoney']Not necessarily, most libertarians would object to the governments involvement in marriage (homosexual or heterosexual), which moots gay marriage as a political issue.[/QUOTE]
It's a contract between two consenting adults. Even libertarians can understand that concept. Then again, we're talking about paultards so we might need to slowly feed the concept via a crazy straw or an Ayn picture book.
 
But when THEY (social conservatives) repeat the mantra that they have defined marriage as tween a man and a woman, they control the message. If it is simply a contract between 2 consenting adults then you don't have to make the 'redefinition of marriage' argument.

Whatever. Republicans, enjoy having another Senator who will vote no on everything, including every republican sponsored bill you can think of.
 
[quote name='msdmoney']Not necessarily, most libertarians would object to the governments involvement in marriage (homosexual or heterosexual), which moots gay marriage as a political issue.[/QUOTE]

I think most people, libertarian or not, agree with that.
 
[quote name='speedracer']It's a contract between two consenting adults. Even libertarians can understand that concept. Then again, we're talking about paultards so we might need to slowly feed the concept via a crazy straw or an Ayn picture book.[/QUOTE]

Despite his condescending attitude, speedracer's right - it's a contract between two consenting adults and the government has no right denying two adults this privilege based solely on the gender of the adults involved. Our government should not be in the business of discrimination based on gender.

Now, I could see how some libertarians might take issue with speedracer's POV on abortion rights...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Despite his condescending attitude, speedracer's right - it's a contract between two consenting adults and the government has no right denying two adults this privilege based solely on the gender of the adults involved. Our government should not be in the business of discrimination based on gender.
[/QUOTE]

That's where I was going with it, I just think stating a libertarian is "pro-gay marriage" oversimplifies the position.
 
On the flip side, you can simplify things by saying Libertarians should never be anti-gay marriage. The opposite might not be true but you shouldn't find any argument about the first part.
 
There's nothing wrong with hiring/firing at will. The issue is if the hiring/firing is discriminatory e.g. they fire all their female employees for no reason whatsoever other than they are female.

Though I must say, coolstarmanbro.
 
[quote name='IRHari']There's nothing wrong with hiring/firing at will. The issue is if the hiring/firing is discriminatory e.g. they fire all their female employees for no reason whatsoever other than they are female. [/QUOTE]

Umm... if it's the employer's will that all female employees be terminated, then wouldn't they be terminated at will?
 
[quote name='speedracer']A libertarian that isn't pro-choice or pro-gay marriage isn't a libertarian. He's just a nutter trading on daddy's name. A perfect fit for the Republican party.[/QUOTE]

Generalizations like that are just as bad as the liberal conservative extremes. There are such things as moderates. I have heard a decent number of libertarians with christian beliefs that have said that even though they don't believe in ___(gay marriage, abortion, ext)___ it should still be decided governed on a state level. While i believe that these should be unrestricted everywhere, the likeliness of that happening anytime soon is low. At least with these moderates it will be aloud somewhere, so these things can be done at all.

As a funny note, being from Kentucky, i have been bombarded by anti and pro Paul adds non stop for the past months; the anti adds with statements like "he believes that we incited terrorism" "gay marriage/abortion shouldn't be completely ruled out but a state regulation" are what made me look him up. I hate how those adds decide what all "Kentucky Values" are.
 
[quote name='An J0e']Generalizations like that are just as bad as the liberal conservative extremes. There are such things as moderates. I have heard a decent number of libertarians with christian beliefs that have said that even though they don't believe in ___(gay marriage, abortion, ext)___ it should still be decided governed on a state level. While i believe that these should be unrestricted everywhere, the likeliness of that happening anytime soon is low. At least with these moderates it will be aloud somewhere, so these things can be done at all. [/QUOTE]

We're saying that isn't a moral compromise that a true libertarian would have to make. You can't be a libertarian and then believe in taking away minorities' (women and gays) rights. It's contrary to the definition of libertarian.
 
[quote name='An J0e']Generalizations like that are just as bad as the liberal conservative extremes. There are such things as moderates. I have heard a decent number of libertarians with christian beliefs that have said that even though they don't believe in ___(gay marriage, abortion, ext)___ it should still be decided governed on a state level. While i believe that these should be unrestricted everywhere, the likeliness of that happening anytime soon is low. At least with these moderates it will be aloud somewhere, so these things can be done at all. [/quote]
There's no such thing as a moderate libertarian. The whole premise is based on freedom from government. The whole house of cards falls as soon as you remove that keystone.

"I believe in freedom except"... then no, you don't believe in freedom, do you?

And sorry, but I don't buy the whole states rights horse shit. Rights of the individual to make personal choices for themselves and their families aren't be to decided by the fascist (yea, I fuckin said it) shitbags in Alabama. Negros would still be sitting in the back of the bus if the Feds hadn't come down like a hammer. Passing the buck to the states doesn't make someone wise, it makes them a spineless pussy.

edit: just read depascal. What he said, with significantly more disdain.
 
[quote name='depascal22']We're saying that isn't a moral compromise that a true libertarian would have to make. You can't be a libertarian and then believe in taking away minorities' (women and gays) rights. It's contrary to the definition of libertarian.[/QUOTE]

While I agree about same-sex marriage, I can understand how a libertarian could be against abortion. If one considers the fetus to be a person, then the government is responsible for helping to protect that person's life. Since different people have different definitions of when life begins, this one isn't quite so cut-and-dry.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2171
But after a firestorm Thursday, Paul told Ingraham that it was a "poor political decision" to go on [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]Maddow's [COLOR=#366388 ! important]show[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and declared that he supported both the ban on public discrimination and the ban on private discrimination.
Click to expand...
Yeah, should have gone on Limbaugh or O'Reilly's shows, wouldn't have been given such really tough questions.

edit-Well it really messed with that quote.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']We're saying that isn't a moral compromise that a true libertarian would have to make. You can't be a libertarian and then believe in taking away minorities' (women and gays) rights. It's contrary to the definition of libertarian.[/QUOTE]

you cant take rights away that were never given. I blame womens suffrage for this mess....
 
While I agree about same-sex marriage, I can understand how a libertarian could be against abortion. If one considers the fetus to be a person, then the government is responsible for helping to protect that person's life. Since different people have different definitions of when life begins, this one isn't quite so cut-and-dry.
Click to expand...
Which is what makes it a perfect test. If I am pro-life, who cares? But if I back up my belief using government force, knowing that a very significant percentage (if not majority) believe otherwise, well, that's about as perfectly opposite one can be to personal liberty.

You can slice it to bullshit infinity, but you're using the government to enforce how you think others should live. A pro-life libertarian politically isn't a libertarian. They're a liar. And like I said before, they can personally be whatever they want as long as they don't vote or influence the system to support their view.

The true libertarian position.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Which is what makes it a perfect test. If I am pro-life, who cares? But if I back up my belief using government force, knowing that a very significant percentage (if not majority) believe otherwise, well, that's about as perfectly opposite one can be to personal liberty.

You can slice it to bullshit infinity, but you're using the government to enforce how you think others should live. A pro-life libertarian politically isn't a libertarian. They're a liar. And like I said before, they can personally be whatever they want as long as they don't vote or influence the system to support their view.

The true libertarian position.[/QUOTE]
If you believe a fetus is a person, then the mother has no more right to terminate the child's life than they do the father's life. In cases of murder, the government is supposed to interfere.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you believe a fetus is a person, then the mother has no more right to terminate the child's life than they do the father's life. In cases of murder, the government is supposed to interfere.[/QUOTE]
You can believe whatever you want. I personally don't care what anyone believes about abortion.

If you believe that you're going to make a moral decision for other people and use the government to enforce your moral decision, you're not a libertarian. Not only that, but the royal "you" couldn't be bothered to even think through libertarianism, which is the political version of kindergarten.

Surprise! Everyone gets to eat positions they don't like because it's the right thing to do. Welcome to America.
 
Using that same logic, one shouldn't expect the government to stop others from murder. I mean, killing folks is all about morals, right?
 
Well this is such a fun read, I can't help but add my 2 cents

First, being a libertarian does not automatically equal a belief in absolute freedom of action. A libertarian, for instance, does not have to believe that a person is free to murder, rape, pillage, etc. Libertarians do not automatically espouse the ideas of Anarchy. Libertarianism, in the American sense, usually relates to a minimalist government.

First, they almost always believe in a Federal (ie not National) government which is restrained by Constitutional limitations. All powers not explicitly granted are thus reserved to the states (10th Amendment arguments).

State governments, though having greater abilities to pass laws than the Federal government, are also limited. Limited by state constitutions (which of course vary) as they are the instruments of the people. Their ideology usually extends to the idea that state governments exist, and their powers thus extend only to, the preservation of property. Hence, murder can be illegal by the state (not the fed) because it deprives a person of their life, which can be seen as their own personal holding (property). Likewise theft can be made illegal for the same reasons.

So, as was articulated earlier, many believe that there should be no governmental role in marriage at all. No Federal action, because it's not a granted power of the constitution, and no State action, because there is no property involved needing protection.

To thus bring this back to the original posting, there has to be a clear distinction between morality and legality, or in the case of the Federal government, constitutionality. There are many laws which Libertarians viewing as being morally righteous, but constitutionally invalid, and must thus be left either to the states to enact, or made legal through a constitutional amendment.

Is the Civil Rights Act one of these morally righteous but constitutionally invalid laws? I leave that to you to decide, but it sounds like something Rand Paul is saying in a very round-about way.

I'll also leave you with this thought .... If the rights of the people descend from the government, how then can the government derive its rights from the people?
 
Well if the rights of people don't come from their government, where else would they come from? Because you realize that only through government action were many of our "inalienable rights" granted to everyone.

Please don't say god either, this isn't a religious battle.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Well if the rights of people don't come from their government, where else would they come from? Because you realize that only through government action were many of our "inalienable rights" granted to everyone.

Please don't say god either, this isn't a religious battle.[/QUOTE]

That is the very question isn't it ... most Founding Fathers said they were inherent (some saying from God, others saying Nature, so on and so forth)

Government exists to defend rights which are already present. For instance, life liberty and property are protected under the 5th amendment. As such, there have been instances where government has stepped in to stop the illegal usurpation of rights, but that does not mean that the government was granting or creating those rights. It simply means it was preventing the continued abuse of those rights by some other party.

But again, how can the people be granted their rights by the government when republican governments are granted their rights by the people? The very notion that rights come from the government makes it impossible to argue for republican (or even democratic) ideals that the government draws its rights from the consent of the governed. After all, how can one give consent, if one does not already have the right to give consent?
 
[quote name='Siterath']First, being a libertarian does not automatically equal a belief in absolute freedom of action. A libertarian, for instance, does not have to believe that a person is free to murder, rape, pillage, etc.[/quote]
I guess I should have pointed that out. I always forget that any conversation about this means I also need to cover moving violations, dog licensing, and zoning laws in the modern libertarian framework while working in Dagny fan fiction references.
Libertarians do not automatically espouse the ideas of Anarchy. Libertarianism, in the American sense, usually relates to a minimalist government.
Click to expand...
Thanks. We're talking about abortion.
First, they almost always believe in a Federal (ie not National) government which is restrained by Constitutional limitations. All powers not explicitly granted are thus reserved to the states (10th Amendment arguments).
Click to expand...
And they almost always know absolutely nothing about a little over two centuries of established case law, but it never stops the tenthers.
State governments, though having greater abilities to pass laws than the Federal government, are also limited. Limited by state constitutions (which of course vary) as they are the instruments of the people. Their ideology usually extends to the idea that state governments exist, and their powers thus extend only to, the preservation of property. Hence, murder can be illegal by the state (not the fed) because it deprives a person of their life, which can be seen as their own personal holding (property). Likewise theft can be made illegal for the same reasons.
Click to expand...
Jesus, where do they hatch and can we put DDT in the water to soften their eggs?

I understand libertarianism, thanks.
So, as was articulated earlier, many believe that there should be no governmental role in marriage at all. No Federal action, because it's not a granted power of the constitution, and no State action, because there is no property involved needing protection.
Click to expand...
Contract. Contract. Contract.

It. has. contract. implications.
To thus bring this back to the original posting, there has to be a clear distinction between morality and legality, or in the case of the Federal government, constitutionality. There are many laws which Libertarians viewing as being morally righteous, but constitutionally invalid, and must thus be left either to the states to enact, or made legal through a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Can someone explain to me how we can trust the states become arbiters of freedom here? I mean, all us libertarians (amirite?) know that government will seize power at every turn. Despite explicit instructions, many states enshrine religion in their Constitutions even!

I guess bringing up the supremacy clause would be stupid.
I'll also leave you with this thought .... If the rights of the people descend from the government, how then can the government derive its rights from the people?
Click to expand...
*facepalm*

You're rubbing off on me, Msut.
 
[quote name='speedracer']
I understand libertarianism, thanks.
[/QUOTE]

The more you post, the more this doesn't seem to be the case.
 
[quote name='Siterath']That is the very question isn't it ... most Founding Fathers said they were inherent (some saying from God, others saying Nature, so on and so forth)

Government exists to defend rights which are already present. For instance, life liberty and property are protected under the 5th amendment. As such, there have been instances where government has stepped in to stop the illegal usurpation of rights, but that does not mean that the government was granting or creating those rights. It simply means it was preventing the continued abuse of those rights by some other party.

But again, how can the people be granted their rights by the government when republican governments are granted their rights by the people? The very notion that rights come from the government makes it impossible to argue for republican (or even democratic) ideals that the government draws its rights from the consent of the governed. After all, how can one give consent, if one does not already have the right to give consent?[/QUOTE]
I think they were saying that people had always had these rights, but were denied them by other governments. So it wasn't so much that the government was giving them rights, but rather designed to defend them. Of course if that is the case it means our government was withholding those right from certain people just as they were withheld before by other governments.

edit- Where is Shrike to tell us to keep on topic?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The more you post, the more this doesn't seem to be the case.[/QUOTE]
Which part gives you that impression? Just so I understand.

Was it my use of an actual clause rather than a vague pointing at an amendment? Basic understanding of the Constitution will give me away as a non-libertarian every time.
[quote name='Siterath']That is the very question isn't it ... most Founding Fathers said they were inherent (some saying from God, others saying Nature, so on and so forth)

Government exists to defend rights which are already present. For instance, life liberty and property are protected under the 5th amendment. As such, there have been instances where government has stepped in to stop the illegal usurpation of rights, but that does not mean that the government was granting or creating those rights. It simply means it was preventing the continued abuse of those rights by some other party.

But again, how can the people be granted their rights by the government when republican governments are granted their rights by the people? The very notion that rights come from the government makes it impossible to argue for republican (or even democratic) ideals that the government draws its rights from the consent of the governed. After all, how can one give consent, if one does not already have the right to give consent?[/QUOTE]
I don't know who manufactures libertarians, but their debating tones are eerily similar. They all want to talk about derived rights, the 10th, and lazy fairs.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Which is what makes it a perfect test. If I am pro-life, who cares? But if I back up my belief using government force, knowing that a very significant percentage (if not majority) believe otherwise, well, that's about as perfectly opposite one can be to personal liberty.

You can slice it to bullshit infinity, but you're using the government to enforce how you think others should live. A pro-life libertarian politically isn't a libertarian. They're a liar. And like I said before, they can personally be whatever they want as long as they don't vote or influence the system to support their view.

The true libertarian position.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure the libertarians on the board (I have many sympathies but wouldn't call myself one) are defending themselves fine on this. I don't believe it's the case that libertarians are okay with people murdering other people without government interference. That's the anarchist view, not the libertarian one.

[quote name='JolietJake']Well if the rights of people don't come from their government, where else would they come from? Because you realize that only through government action were many of our "inalienable rights" granted to everyone.

Please don't say god either, this isn't a religious battle.[/QUOTE]

Our rights come from nature, not from government. You and I (and everyone else) is naturally free, with all that comes with that. If you believe your rights come from government, you also believe said government can take our rights away. The Constitution (with Bill of Rights) spells out those natural rights and forbids the government from interfering with them, which is why the wording is such that recognizes the right already exists and the government is not to interfere.

"Congress shall make no law respecting..."
"The right....shall not be infringed."

etc.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm sure the libertarians on the board (I have many sympathies but wouldn't call myself one) are defending themselves fine on this. I don't believe it's the case that libertarians are okay with people murdering other people without government interference. That's the anarchist view, not the libertarian one.[/quote]
That's a fair statement. So where's the line, other than an arbitrary one I decide on (on say abortion, not so much murder)?
 
[quote name='speedracer']That's a fair statement. So where's the line, other than an arbitrary one I decide on (on say abortion, not so much murder)?[/QUOTE]

Obviously it depends on one's beliefs. I have mine and you have yours. Mine say that abortion, unless performing it eliminates an imminent threat to another life (the mother), is murder. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a fair number of libertarians think the same way. If that is their belief, surely they would be in favor of stopping said abortions just as much a they would be against people shooting each other in the streets?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Our rights come from nature, not from government. You and I (and everyone else) is naturally free, with all that comes with that. If you believe your rights come from government, you also believe said government can take our rights away. The Constitution (with Bill of Rights) spells out those natural rights and forbids the government from interfering with them, which is why the wording is such that recognizes the right already exists and the government is not to interfere.

"Congress shall make no law respecting..."
"The right....shall not be infringed."

etc.[/QUOTE]

And the punchline was millions of slaves.
 
[quote name='SpazX']And the punchline was millions of slaves.[/QUOTE]

Not exactly how I would describe it, but yes, that tragic inconsistency was present, and we all know what happened. Of course, that has nothing to do with where our rights come from, but only what happens when government attempts to take them away (in this case successfully for quite a long time).
 
[quote name='SpazX']And the punchline was millions of slaves.[/QUOTE]

Slavery was the set up, Jim Crow was the punchline.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Not exactly how I would describe it, but yes, that tragic inconsistency was present, and we all know what happened. Of course, that has nothing to do with where our rights come from, but only what happens when government attempts to take them away (in this case successfully for quite a long time).[/QUOTE]

A government isn't required to enslave someone. Or kill them, etc. The government didn't take a right away, it failed to keep certain people from infringing on the rights of other people. It was all entirely natural of course.
 
The downside of libertarianism is failure to recognize when Big Brother aka the Federal Government needs step in.

Segregation was the result of leaving it up to the states after that civil war.

Libertarianism works great if everybody plays fair.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Obviously it depends on one's beliefs. I have mine and you have yours. Mine say that abortion, unless performing it eliminates an imminent threat to another life (the mother), is murder. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a fair number of libertarians think the same way. If that is their belief, surely they would be in favor of stopping said abortions just as much a they would be against people shooting each other in the streets?[/QUOTE]
At the same time, there's a pivot point in opinion polls on abortion around 50% give or take 5-7 points as the winds blow. Clearly, this is a point of contention that has significant ideological support on both sides. Like I said before, it's a perfect test. Do (the royal libertarian) "we" in this case believe in the rights of an individual to decide for themselves on such a contentious issue, or do "we" believe we need to legislate our morality and back it up with the force of government?

I don't think abortion is analogous to murder and I don't think, despite any personal feelings about it, that it's a difficult concept to see the inherent problem with enforcing abortion laws from within a libertarian framework. It just doesn't fit.

And let's be real here. When a libertarian takes a social position that the ultra conservative religion voting bloc in this country cheers on 100%, something's fucking wrong man.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Libertarianism works great if everybody plays fair.[/QUOTE]
And therein lies the cosmic joke. Libertarians will be the first to tell you that no one plays fair but the connection isn't made.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I don't think abortion is analogous to murder[...][/QUOTE]

If a fetus is a person, then it's murder. Plain and simple.

If you happen to be the type of person who believes a fetus is a person, then you don't really see it any other way.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I'm sure the libertarians on the board (I have many sympathies but wouldn't call myself one) are defending themselves fine on this. I don't believe it's the case that libertarians are okay with people murdering other people without government interference. That's the anarchist view, not the libertarian one.



Our rights come from nature, not from government. You and I (and everyone else) is naturally free, with all that comes with that. If you believe your rights come from government, you also believe said government can take our rights away. The Constitution (with Bill of Rights) spells out those natural rights and forbids the government from interfering with them, which is why the wording is such that recognizes the right already exists and the government is not to interfere.

"Congress shall make no law respecting..."
"The right....shall not be infringed."

etc.[/QUOTE]Right, so where were the rights of blacks or women? Why did the government have to declare that they had the same rights as white men if they always had them? We have rights because our government lets us, to think otherwise is being ignorant of history. You may believe you naturally have them, but for practical purposes, it's the government granting you said rights.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you happen to be the type of person who believes a fetus is a person, then you don't really see it any other way.[/QUOTE]
And if you can understand the fact that a solid 50% give or take do not feel the same way, then you understand the problem with legislating and using the government to enforce your moral choice.

I'm not saying libertarians can't think it's murder. Whatevs. Legislating morality is wholly outside the libertarian ethos. Plain and simple.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Right, so where were the rights of blacks or women? Why did the government have to declare that they had the same rights as white men if they always had them? We have rights because our government lets us, to think otherwise is being ignorant of history. You may believe you naturally have them, but for practical purposes, it's the government granting you said rights.[/QUOTE]

It was not the government declaring or bestowing rights, but recognizing those rights. Government at any level is not infallible, and your argument implies that the government's rejection of the rights of blacks and/or women was right. After all, if government grants rights, then it can grant them to whoever it wants. It was right of them when they didn't grant them to non-White men, and it was right of them when they did. This argument of infallibility is simply incorrect.

Additionally, if one believes that rights are bestowed by government, one would then also believe that a government could strip those rights at will, and could do so with no justifiable response by the people.

Secondly, as already articulated, the language of American government (specifically the bill of rights) recognizes inherent rights. Therefore, how can the government grant that which it already recognizes to exist? I'd have no more right to grant water to the ocean. Also, I reiterate, the entire principle of this government (and of republican government as a whole) is that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Once more I ask, how can one give consent if one does not already have the right to give consent?

Lastly, let me pose this question to you. If our government were to cease to exist, and beyond that, if there were to be a total absence of government, would rights still exist? Would you, or anyone, still have the right to live? The right to feed and clothe thyself? Do these maxims, these very rights of nature, exist only in the presence of government?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top