Comments on: “Winning” is Losing. For All of Us.

By: mark

mark — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 00:10:23 +0000

Well said, in fact this is the idea of freedom that most of our founders had in mind especially Thomas Jefferson.

By: Sanity

Sanity — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:13:10 +0000

Less centralized absolutely. I think the Supreme Court should be reminded of their job and have a little less job security, but that is a different issue. The scale of government would have changed since the founding of this country, so that should be recognized on what is essential or not, but every department should be measured for their true worth. If their original purpose is mute, and if they expect their government job to be secure, then they should be retrained for a purpose that is needed. Talk about an industry that needs a lay-off or restructuring!

By: Monorprise

Monorprise — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 01:56:45 +0000

This is something I enjoy about his campaign too. Its good to see someone challanging some of the past compromises we have made. Couldn't happen at a better time for republican ether. If the Democrats let their hate of republicans drive them to reject states rights they will invariably loses big time.

There is a reason both political parties have long had in their platform a support for States rights. Nobody wins when power is centralized except Washington D.C. So I suspect one way or the other the democratic party will be force to either point out the republican hypocrisy, or (if we have anything to say about it) play one upmanship with them.

By: monorprise

monorprise — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:35:40 +0000

No doubt being purely true to the Constitution is necessary, but being pure to any ideology dictating a set of policy's is not a good idea in a large federation.

The larger the Federation the more potential diversity (thus divisibility) on any given issue, and thus the smaller the range of agreeable tickets of issues.(down to non-existences) In a government which covers a large range of issues the odds of any one ideology purely applied across the board just being palatable to a mere majority of the federation goes down with the larger size of the Federation.
Hence as a generality it can and perhaps should be said that being a purist in a large federation is a way of saying loser. This is in many respects unfortunate, because tickets that do work are likely to be incoherent and twisted results of a history of previous factional compromises.

The more ideal solution, as advocated by the 10th amendment implicitly is to keep the centralized government limited to as few issues as possible so that the political ticket of issues may be as short as possible. But short of that a purist who throws out them compromises is most unlikely to win, certainly not without making an entirely new set of compromises(thus ending purist status).

By: monorprise

monorprise — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 12:19:56 +0000

I would say that if anything has changed it has been that as we have grown in size & diversity we have developed a need for smaller less centralized Government not more.
But I tend to agree the Constitution is not negotiable, the question is how to enforce it. Winning a Federal Presidential (or congressional) election will not get us there, anymore then picking the prefect 9 Federal judges. A constitution dividing power and thus limiting the power of different sides needs to be enforced by the stakeholders upon each other.

By: Sanity

Sanity — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 02:34:56 +0000

As to "violating the Constitution", the Founders would recognize that this country is far larger than what they designed the Constitution for and that the States are far more dependent on each other that they were then. Things change and so did/should the Constitution. That being said, it should only change to correct abuses of power and I do believe 90% of the government needs vast correction back in the direction of "That don't work nationally. Let some states prove what does work, and then suggest fixes to other states"

By: Sanity

Sanity — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 02:32:59 +0000

You’ll have a hard time pinning me down with "You have no problem with…" statements. I'm simply stating that the country is not where it SHOULD be and that the path to get there is not a simple shut down of most of the national (and some State) departments. The "more of the same" rhetoric doesn't help either. I said the problem is lack of accountability. They break campaign promises and keep their job. No path is straight, so there are steps that have to be taken that appear in the wrong direction, but there has to be justification for it and there has to be an exit/ending plan to those steps. Currently there is neither.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 16:20:32 +0000

I like the fact that Ron Paul is shaking up the GOP orthadoxy and actually being one of the first republican that I can remember who is a proponent of not using the military. Its refreshing to hear sometimes from a conservative or someone on the right.

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:37:05 +0000

so you have no problem with all the constitutional violations that come out of DC then, right? Because that IS what you are advocating for…..more of the same. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul or any other candidate, but instead, with the fact that you are tolerant of the idea of violating the constitution.

By: Forum Recap and Why “Winning” isn’t Enough | Roanoke Tea Party

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:06:43 +0000

[...] your consideration, I give you an excerpt from this article on the 10th Amendment Center. I was at a meeting recently where I was urged to be willing to [...]