• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul at the CNN debate

You cannot violate everyone's rights to potentially protect the rights of some.

Sure you can; we do it all the time: seatbelt laws, speed limits, airport metal detectors, tax audits, etc., etc.
 
Actually, the principle is that you can only have your rights violated by the government, not taken away, and the government is only justified in violating rights if it is done to prevent another person's rights from being violated or in response to another person's rights being violated. However, that violation should be limited only to those who can be reasonably shown as seeking to violate the rights of others, or having already violated them. You cannot violate everyone's rights to potentially protect the rights of some.


What's the difference between "have your rights violated" and having it taken away?

This concept of "Rights" is very vague, is it something that's inherent in any person given by God, or is it given by the government per the constitution, or it is just another imaginary concept human dream up to keep an order society?
 
What's the difference between "have your rights violated" and having it taken away?

This concept of "Rights" is very vague, is it something that's inherent in any person given by God, or is it given by the government per the constitution, or it is just another imaginary concept human dream up to keep an order society?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
 
Sure you can; we do it all the time: seatbelt laws, speed limits, airport metal detectors, tax audits, etc., etc.

I was not meaning it in the respect of what is possible, but in the respect of what is acceptable for those advocating the principle.

What's the difference between "have your rights violated" and having it taken away?

This concept of "Rights" is very vague, is it something that's inherent in any person given by God, or is it given by the government per the constitution, or it is just another imaginary concept human dream up to keep an order society?

Unfortunately, it seems people have a hard time thinking about a human-iterated concept of a non-physical character as a natural law. Humanity did not "dream up" happiness and it was not created by anyone. Natural rights are a similar concept. They were not created by man, but merely given form and function by man. We were simply the first species we know of capable of processing and interpreting the logical underpinnings of our innate emotional tendencies. Every organism's sense of being entitled to live and the unspoken consensus on this entitled feeling's legitimacy was simply not something other creatures were capable of elaborating upon.

We are getting off topic though, so I think I will leave it at that.
 
Why do you type with your tongue?

Keyboards are actually one of the most bacteria infested items in peoples households.

I seriously recommend you do get that Mouth wash, and cease typing using your tongue.

Ahahaha. This is why you can't get laid by girls without retainers.
 
Sure you can; we do it all the time: seatbelt laws, speed limits, airport metal detectors, tax audits, etc., etc.
I guess one more can't hurt right?
 
I guess one more can't hurt right?

You generally want to use a cost-benefit analysis rather than a one more can't hurt analysis.
 
I was not meaning it in the respect of what is possible, but in the respect of what is acceptable for those advocating the principle.

What's acceptable to those advocating the principle might not be best for society as a whole.


Unfortunately, it seems people have a hard time thinking about a human-iterated concept of a non-physical character as a natural law. Humanity did not "dream up" happiness and it was not created by anyone. Natural rights are a similar concept. They were not created by man, but merely given form and function by man. We were simply the first species we know of capable of processing and interpreting the logical underpinnings of our innate emotional tendencies. Every organism's sense of being entitled to live and the unspoken consensus on this entitled feeling's legitimacy was simply not something other creatures were capable of elaborating upon.

We are getting off topic though, so I think I will leave it at that.

Happiness is an emotion, Rights are legal provisions. Even I can't control my emotion sometimes, whereas anyone stronger than me can shut me up. It's only with others' help (usually in the form of police officers, employed by the government) can I stop the stronger party from shutting me up.

No creature is entitled to live. A tiger doesn't come up to its prey and acknowledge that it's entitled to live. Most creatures never get to live its full life - if there is such a thing as a full life. My ability to live is only as good as my ability to keep myself safe and maintain my livelihood - and that might include a police state or not.

This concept of "Natural rights", or the idea that leaving society, or the market, to work things out by itself and everything will turn out alright - it's delusional. Which Rights are provided by "Natural Law"? Nature seems to have a very simple rule: survival of the fittest. Same with the market. It's in an effort to counteract Nature that we form into complex society with constraints such as a legal system, and which then give us concepts such as Rights that is legally enforceable. But Paul likes to minimize the benefits from all these restraints and imagine a utopian that never were, and that's why his ideas are not realistic or practical.
 
You generally want to use a cost-benefit analysis rather than a one more can't hurt analysis.
In general, I would say there isn't enough benefit to justify blatantly violating civil liberties.
 
In general, I would say there isn't enough benefit to justify blatantly violating civil liberties.

Hard to comment on such loaded generalities.
 
Hard to comment on such loaded generalities.
Generalities? I don't believe that fighting "terrorism" is a valid excuse to violate civil liberties. Specific enough?
 
Generalities? I don't believe that fighting "terrorism" is a valid excuse to violate civil liberties. Specific enough?

No, that's still pretty general. What do you mean by "violate civil liberties"?
 
I agree with a lot of what Paul stands for, but he takes everything to an extreme that I can't support. Our foreign policy should be less interventionist, but we shouldn't be complete isolationists. We should be more careful with our foreign aid, but we should not end all foreign aid. We should step back from some of the overreaching in the Patriot Act, but you cannot have security without giving up some liberty. Etc. It runs throughout his platform and it's why he'll never be elected President.

I think the extremism is in some peoples criticisms about Ron Paul. I don't think he is going to be some strict, by-the-word defender of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. I think he is trying to emphasize the glaring differences between what we, the US, is supposed to be about and what we have been dong. He is saying about these seemingly innocent incursions into our liberties for freedom that it is a smokescreen. It's like giving a person a gun and saying don't shoot anybody good with it. That person says OK and the only thing holding him to it is his conscience. He starts off shooting bad people, but down the line, what happens when he decides to start shooting the good as well?

Paul's argument on foreign aid is a bit of a strawman. It's pretty obvious that a lot of the foreign aid we dole out is for security reasons and not to feed starving children. Do you think we'd have ever naild bin Laden if we weren't bribing the Pakistanis to allow us to operate inside their borders?

What is pretty obvious? Just because you are told that and shown that by people who want you to think that doesn't mean it is true. There's been a lot of evidence over the years from World War II and most infamously from wars like Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, and the like, that US aid is a political instrument used to further US political/economic goals in the area. Thinking that we are spending so much on goodwill and harmony is a bit naive.

He's totally wrong on the main thrust of his arguement. We sacrifice liberty for safety, we limit the bill of rights for security - it's the only way to have a peaceful functional society. The only question is how far we're willing to sacrifice our freedom for our security, and the Patriot Act is going too far.

Agreed. But I think that is what he was really trying to say anyway. This and for those who thinks he is a pedantic isolationist. He is not an isolationist. But in a time of extreme government intervention in other countries, it's time to call in for a swift regrouping of many US personnel. No one is going to completely ignore other countries. Gauraunteed, Camelot itself will have spies in your soup bowl, but I think he is calling for an immediate halt, regroup, and re-accounting of Us practices and policies. Fix home first, then engage in foreign matters responsibly and economically.
 
What is pretty obvious? Just because you are told that and shown that by people who want you to think that doesn't mean it is true. There's been a lot of evidence over the years from World War II and most infamously from wars like Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, and the like, that US aid is a political instrument used to further US political/economic goals in the area. Thinking that we are spending so much on goodwill and harmony is a bit naive.

You might want to go back and read what I actually wrote. :roll:
 
No, that's still pretty general. What do you mean by "violate civil liberties"?
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called "Lone Wolf" provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.
 
I think the extremism is in some peoples criticisms about Ron Paul. I don't think he is going to be some strict, by-the-word defender of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. I think he is trying to emphasize the glaring differences between what we, the US, is supposed to be about and what we have been dong. He is saying about these seemingly innocent incursions into our liberties for freedom that it is a smokescreen. It's like giving a person a gun and saying don't shoot anybody good with it. That person says OK and the only thing holding him to it is his conscience. He starts off shooting bad people, but down the line, what happens when he decides to start shooting the good as well?



What is pretty obvious? Just because you are told that and shown that by people who want you to think that doesn't mean it is true. There's been a lot of evidence over the years from World War II and most infamously from wars like Vietnam, Korea, Serbia, and the like, that US aid is a political instrument used to further US political/economic goals in the area. Thinking that we are spending so much on goodwill and harmony is a bit naive.



Agreed. But I think that is what he was really trying to say anyway. This and for those who thinks he is a pedantic isolationist. He is not an isolationist. But in a time of extreme government intervention in other countries, it's time to call in for a swift regrouping of many US personnel. No one is going to completely ignore other countries. Gauraunteed, Camelot itself will have spies in your soup bowl, but I think he is calling for an immediate halt, regroup, and re-accounting of Us practices and policies. Fix home first, then engage in foreign matters responsibly and economically.

I'm sure we have been reading and listening to two very different Ron Pauls. And whatever you think he might want to say, I take his words as they are.
 
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called "Lone Wolf" provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.

Now THAT is specific! And I agree completely.
 
Ron Paul is an idiot. He proved that when he said he wants to abolish CIA. He's noting but a mixed bag of everything that's wrong with both parties.

Abolishing the CIA would be the smartest move this country could make. Two weeks after the assasination of John Kennedy (coincidence? I think not) Truman stated that he created the CIA to simply consolidate intel from the military branches and the Department of State and report it to him, the President. Truman went on to say that it had grown into a horrible, uncontrolable monster.
The CIA has become the forth branch of government, and sadly trumps the other three. It is not regulated, not within the system of checks and balances. They assisinate who they want, even American citizens. If any of the three branches demand to see CIA documents, they burn them and brag about it. Not even Congress knows what the CIA does with the money... but sadly we do. They bring drugs into this country which gets delt to our kids... to finance half cocked wars which kill off our kids... to prop up dictators like Saddam, all of which come back to bite us in the ass... to train and supply people like Osama Bin Laden who wants to kill pur kids.
They bragg their drones have killed more people in Afghanistan than the military.
They have their own armies and air force.
I rarely side against a fellow veteran, but the defense and support of the CIA makes me sick and is frankly unamerican.
"He who would sacrific liberity for security deserve neither" -Ben Franklin
The belief that we need government to protect us from ourselves is what is wrong with both parties.
When in truth, we need each other to protect ourselves from tyranny.
 
Last edited:
Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.

I'll have to go back and look at this. To my understanding 206 actually does act as you say...it requires a specified person. The issue people had with it was not that it didn't name an individual, but rather that it allowed the government to simply designate an individual and from that designation be able to wiretap a number of various locations including "public" things like library computers and pay phones.
 
Abolishing the CIA would be the smartest move this country could make. Two weeks after the assasination of John Kennedy (coincidence? I think not) Truman stated that he created the CIA to simply consolidate intel from the military branches and the Department of State and report it to him, the President. Truman went on to say that it had grown into a horrible, uncontrolable monster.
The CIA has become the forth branch of government, and sadly trumps the other three. It is not regulated, not within the system of checks and balances. They assisinate who they want, even American citizens. If any of the three branches demand to see CIA documents, they burn them and brag about it. Not even Congress knows what the CIA does with the money... but sadly we do. They bring drugs into this country which gets delt to our kids... to finance half cocked wars which kill off our kids... to prop up dictators like Saddam, all of which come back to bite us in the ass... to train and supply people like Osama Bin Laden who wants to kill pur kids.
They bragg their drones have killed more people in Afghanistan than the military.
They have their own armies and air force.
I rarely side against a fellow veteran, but the defense and support of the CIA makes me sick and is frankly unamerican.
"He who would sacrific liberity for security deserve neither" -Ben Franklin
The belief that we need government to protect us from ourselves is what is wrong with both parties.
When in truth, we need each other to protect ourselves from tyranny.

i have to say im starting to agree with him my self more and more as we keep hearing more and more about the CIA providing bad intel and civilian casualties are rising up around the world
 
Back
Top Bottom