here is the issue. if you accept the constitution then it must be amended correctly if you think there is a necessary change. Ron Paul doesn't have a problem with the consequence of the decision but the means it came about.

The constitution often puts government above individuals. It seems you'd prefer a more libertarian oriented society and I'd agree. This doesn't change the fact that those in power have taken an oath to uphold the constitution, and not their personal ideals.

I wouldn't say nothing but its certainly not everything. Economic freedom does almost always tend towards stronger social freedom however than would otherwise be the case.

If a state will attract capital though and remains socially repressive its likely the case that people can leave their money there but dont need to live there. The choice of where you live will be made on that basis.

the constitution was actually formed in a way that gave the state a lot of power to oppress or discriminate people based on certain conditions.

your argument defending the supreme court is just as true on the state level. It should be the legislator job to prevent discrimination in the first place.

some people see roe v wade as legislating the destruction of human rights. Supreme court upholds drug laws. supreme court uphold eminent domain. there likely tons but would need to spend time researching. The point is still a theoretical one anyways. You have to explain why the SCOTUS is constructed in such a way that prevents errors that the states are likely to make. If its equal, then we are in much bigger danger then when the SCOTUS gets something wrong versus states.

lincoln got away with killing more americans than any other president and depriving basic civil liberties. How was this managed?

I'm actually curious... not fresh on the history of it.

so everything were decided on a global scale it we'd be even better right?

And there is no a majority vote on federal court decisions. As you said, they are appointees by the executive branch.

There's two types of statists:

Those in denial of the fundamentally aggressive nature of states (Taxation ain't theft! people)

Those who are able to acknowledge this fact, but think it is necessary or justified for some other reason (but who will pave teh roadz?!? people)

Being in group one, believing in democracy or Keynesian/Marxist economics is just as bad, if not worse, than believing in creationism. At least RP said as part of the infamous creationism quote that he didn't think it should matter, or in other words, that he wouldn't force these views on people.

Law - what happened.
Theory - why that happened.

Laws are observations of things that happen, like "species changing slightly over many generations". A theory is an explanation of why that is happening and is falsifiable, like "members of that species with certain traits are more likely to survive to reproduction, making those traits more prevalent in the species as a whole".

A theory never becomes a law. A why cannot become a what.

People that think a theory is "less than" a law are grossly misrepresenting the scientific method by qualitatively comparing the what with the why. People that dismiss something as "just a theory" don't understand the rigors a theory must go through before it becomes "accepted science".

Aye, they're entirely different categories of scientific statement. I stand by what I said though, as simpler is more certain.

You can certainly sue someone for making defamatory statements on an internet forum if someone has been making false statements that caused harm.

If you believe the quoted post qualifies as libel, though, I'm confused. Libel against who? What did I say that was false? Who was harmed?

You constantly try to put ridiculous statements in other peoples' mouths and insinuate some of the most absurd things about particular ideological groups, but it's not like anyone takes you seriously...

Ron Paul will be on CNN’s “State of the Union” this coming Sunday.

You might first take a minute to look up what the word 'libel' means.

Re: taxation = theft.

Taxation may or may not be theft, it is not relevant. But IMO, what is happening is indeed organized theft through taxation/government structure.

Sholar has already explained all of this, but this is pretty ridiculous nonsense. There is a much greater than 90% that Paul simply doesn't get what evolution is or is purposely saying incorrect things about it for the votes, with the latter being far more likely.

And it is again, totally wrong. The most accuratel scientific idea in human history is quantum field theory, where calculations agree with experiment to .0001%. Tons of laws, like the ideal gas law, are simply approximations that just work ok just some of the time.

Saying something is "just a theory" simply means the speaker does not understand what theory means in modern science. Not sure how many times this needs to be explained here before people stop getting it totally wrong.

LOL nobody taking me seriously is MY SIDE of the libel argument. But again, the only person I could possibly be libeling is Ron Paul, and he wrote an article about how Texas should be able to criminalize sodomy. Truth is an absolute defense to libel.

Like, seriously AlexM seems borderline apoplectic over this subtangent, but nobody is strawmanning him or anything. People are providing him various examples of states' rights being overriden to counter his theory and he's FREAKING OUT because can't we all just agree that states' rights are the bestest without bringing up any of the actual states' rights issues that have existed?

what about string theory? Or do those working in this field not know what the word theory means?

String theory is not a tested and accepted scientific theory. There are varying degrees of excitement amongst experts that it could be someday.

Really, the word "theory" has a wide range of meanings that are commonly used. From hugely tested and successful scientific ideas (theory of evolution, quantum field theory) to rigorously proven pure math (K theory) to random speculation that people just make up (My theory on what happened to the last donut in the break room is.....). I can see why people sometimes can get confused by this...but those that are confused are some mix of stupid and ignorant. (Not saying that you are necessarily one of those things, just that you are defending somebody who is.)

ahhh. thanks for clearing it up. based on your previous post:

you would think it was pretty cut and dry.

I do think it is cut and dry and very easy to understand for a reasonably bright, reasonably educated person. I also get why both conditions are necessary.

.I am quite aware of that.

the tax discussion is unbelievable. taxes are theft BY DEFINITION. as others have pointed out, you might think this theft is necessary, but theft is theft nonetheless. they are stealing your money, that's a fact.

there is no "social agreement." where is the agreement? show me the agreement. i didn't agree to ****.

the fact that "most people don't see it that way" means nothing. most people thinking a certain way doesn't change a ****ing definition.

6. eyebrows

7. how "presidential" is each candidate?

/wrists

Lol if by "pointed out", you actually mean "asserted despite concrete factual evidence to the contrary" then yes.

hi suzzer.

what "factual evidence?" the only facts here are the definitions of "theft" and "stealing."

hey guys, i have some awesome shirts i want to sell you, it's going to be $40/shirt. everyone ITT has to buy 25 of them.

what, you don't want them? here. i'm giving them to you. you each owe me $1,000 now. if you don't pay me for them, you have to go to prison. if you don't go to prison, i'm going to send men to your homes to take you to prison. if you resist, they're going to kill you.

what, you didn't agree to this? it's a "social agreement!" this is what's best for everyone!

you think this is theft? lol! there's concrete factual evidence to the contrary!

The definition of tax is also kinda important. Every definition of theft I've found uses the word "unauthorized" or "fraudulently" or "felonious". http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

punter:

do you think people should have the ability to opt out of social security?

also, what would you say if i told you i was starting a new social security service that's going to exist in addition to the current system? you pay me X% of your earnings, i'll invest it for you, and then i'll give you back the money in 35 years or something. of course, this is going to take time, so i'm going to charge you a small fee for my services as well. if you don't pay me for this now, you have to go to prison. if you don't go to prison, i'm going to send men to your homes to take you to prison. if you resist, they're going to kill you.

what, you didn't agree to this? it's a "social agreement!" this is what's best for everyone!

"authorized" by whom? the entity that's committing the theft?

LLLOOOLLL.

Authorized implies authority. Which means by this definition taxation is not theft because it is authorized. Can you move on to some other ultra-simplistic line of thinking?