Brian Miller wrote:
BM) We're not discussing "federalism and decentralism." (BM
Ron Paul is, but you're trying to pretend he's talking about "slavery".
BM) We're discussing "states' rights" (BM
It's ludicrous for you to suggest that Ron Paul's "states' rights" position is more about "slavery" than it is about federalism.
BM) -- specifically, Ron Paul's position that the Bill of Rights does not apply to state and local governments. (BM
I too suspect he believes that at least in part, but can you quote him saying that? As I said yesterday, I tried but could only confirm him 1) saying that about the Congress-shall-make-no-law 1st Amendment, and 2) disagreeing with the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine. Can you do any better?
BM) Please *do* stick to the topic at hand. (BM
ROTFL. "Slavery" isn't the topic at hand. The topic at hand is whether it's unlibertarian to advocate that the power to protect individual liberty should be centralized versus distributed among sovereign state governments. Do you have the intellectual courage to address this topic, or not?
By the way, I note that you're now even fleeing from the topic you desperately wanted to switch to -- viz., your claim that
"states' rights" doctrine was created as an underpinning to justify slavery.
I cited evidence to the contrary, and dared you to claim that Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson thought that the best thing about the concept of states' sovereignty was that it would help preserve the institution of slavery. Do you have the intellectual courage to answer this point, or not?
BM) what is my "narrow and self-involved agenda?" (BM
I'll give you a hint. You've touted exactly one scorecard for presidential candidates, and it focuses on issues covered by only one (or if you squint, maybe two) of the 62 planks of the 2004 LP Platform -- or 2 out of the 27 planks of the PlatCom's draft, take your pick. Does that help?
