The system we continue to support is hopeless. And bankrupt. Vote libertarian!

Having a kid definitely can increase the pathos in one's political view.

I am opposed to DHS outright. Also most federal Depts. They are useless at best, harmful to many, and way too expensive.

We need a pre-Civil War fed. They don't need to DO anything. We have so many fucking do-ers in government at the local and state level, why do we need massive federal oversight?

To curb the excesses of state and local governments, especially when the trample on the rights of citizens?

Or do you want to bring back Jim Crow laws, and laws outlawing abortion, interracial marriage, birth control and consensual sodomy, all of which the fucking do-ers at the state and local level thought were awesome ideas?

1) Unfortunately, using pathos-grounded reasons to govern is unwise, I think we can agree.

2) I am also opposed to DHS outright. So, considering the huge chunk of the budget that gets swallowed by DHS and other boondoggles like the war on drugs shouldn't we start there and then worry about the FDA later? That is, giving the libertarian view its full scope, don't you have to prioritize at some point? Otherwise you're just an anarchist, right?

3) For the love of all that is even semi-precious, NO WE DO NOT need a pre-Civil War Federal government. (And what's with the new RP youngbloods who keep saying "the Fed" when they mean federal government?) You may as well just preach a doctrine of fifty very loosely connected city-states, like so many broke-ass Athenses and Spartaartaartaartas. Sounds like a great plan.

I don't know enough about the NAFTA superhighway plan, or whatever they are calling it. I am generally opposed to policy that would erase our current borders and lessen our sovreignity.

So we should abolish things like Child Services, right? I mean who cares if kids are being neglected so bad, or beaten to a pulp. Why should the government make people responsible for the monetary benefit of children, stupid child support. The government should not intervene. Stupid Health and Human Services.

OR we could save money and abolish laws that go after things like Pedophilia, right? I mean it would save the Feds, local and state government some big time cash if they wouldn't "intervene" with people's lives. Let them choose how to live their life! No government intervention, stupid FBI.

I actually like the city-states idea a lot. Not perfect, kinda messy, but teeming with life. The big government idea sucks life out of everyone, equally.

This is precisely the kind of thing I'm talking about. If you support a loosening of stricture on the free market effect on labor (i.e., laborers moving towards where there is means of production, i.e., ECON 101 stuff) then how can you also say something like "I am generally opposed to policy that would erase our current borders?"

PS - you don't need to know anything about the NAFTA superhighway "plan" because there is no plan so "they" aren't "calling it" anything.

I don't have a problem with child services or laws against violent behavior. Why would I? I would get rid of federal departments that interfere with states' rights to decide in these regards. Any state that comes up with a better system should be able to influence the rest of us. Same goes for immigration, drug laws, whatever. I am fine with socialism in small amounts, if the convenience works for a local majority and isn't prohibitively expensive. I oppose big government in all its forms. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm getting really close to being with FTR on this one, with regards to you. Given your statement above, please explain:

1) Whether you think the outcome of the Civil War was just to the former CSA.

2) Why you think a return to (as has been pointed out by others) Jim Crow, outlawed abortion, etc., represents a system any person calling themselves a "libertarian" should support.

3) Why, exactly, the mechanism that makes sure we don't have to eat Chinese dog food when we're 79, don't have shitty teeth because of flouride, don't have to worry about E. bola, etc., should be dismantled.

Answer any two of these well and you will have saved us all a lot of time. For bonus credit, explain to the rest of us why the Ron Paul libertarian is on the pro expensive federally-funded fence side of this argument.

Because the US borders suffice to create a large marketplace, and I would not want any further tampering with expanding the pool of labor and production to include an ailing neighbor. Maybe that sounds harsh, but I am opposed to policy that would render us all equally lower class.

NAFTA has ambitions to regulate North American trade. That makes me skeptical outright. Do we get to elect these people?

Why would you? Because it is what you are arguing towards. It is how your candidate wants the country to run. What about "any state" that decides too many manhours are being spent on "pointless" domestic calls that take up cell space, so a kid has to end up dead or with limbs broken before anybody gives a shit? Ron Paul and the states' rights crowd don't see that the same potential exists for a state to go tits up (which is prevented by federal gov't power) as to turn into some utopia of RonPaulian liberty. Why we would want to subject our proud nation to that kind of chaos is beyond me, and seemingly beyond the rhetorical capabilities of any Ron Paul supporter I've encountered so far.

Wait, wait, wait. So now you're framing a loosening of restriction at the border "further tampering with expanding the pool of labor?" And you claim to be a free marketer? Are you feeling well? You realize this is self-contradictory, do you not?

Uh, how is it surprising that the "North American Free Trade Agreement" agencies might wish to regulate North American trade? I think "ambition" was a nicely loaded noun there, Wordsworth. Oh, and who are "these people" in your little straw-man bit there at the end? If they aren't elected, or appointed by people who are elected, how'd they get there? Do you really think there are that many people who have some sort of ill-gotten control over your life? Hell, as corrupt and/or incompetent as I find the Bush 43 crony squad, I don't feel like my part in the political process has been usurped by a shadow brigade. Grow up.

The Feds only have "requirements" that need to be met. The requirements are usually bare bones, at least in the case of EPA, OSHA and Child Services.

The state only has to meet those requirements, if they exceed them, there is no complaint from the Federal Government. California exceeds every other state when it comes to EPA programs. California is striving for cleaner power, they usually set the benchmark for the rest of us. Ohio is looking into wind power, using California's system as a base.

If the state institutes a better system, it usually only benefits that state. You have to have federal requirements for states, that's just how it works. You could have a state like California that is striving for environmental excellence, then a state like Kentucky that would do absolutely nothing to ensure environmental safety. They'd still be running coal fired boilers with no pollution control devices on them.

The requirements set in place by the federal government for the state governments, aren't set to hamper the states, they're set to ensure policies are enacted.

There has to be some type of benchmark for the states to follow. Otherwise you'd have the Independent States of America, rather than the United States.

Uh, yeah, I heard something about that....Also I remember sitting in El Paso, TX, in early summer watching Mexican men in long sleeves literally climbing and jumping over the fence and running across the busy highway.

The fence is clearly not the answer. Nessuno made some great points. Illegal immigration and its consequences are so obviously a direct result of colonial foreign policies. I slam my head into my desk when people suggest otherwise.