would you support Panama paying the US back (adjusted for inflation of course)?
Actually yes, but obviously it is not as simple as the cost of building the canal and calculating in inflation, there are substantial monetary benefits that were gained by many other nations and many corporations. It may turn out the way you think it will.
The only reason religion is brought into this is because you're using it as a strawman because you disagree with those particular laws
No, Ron Paul brought religion into the argument, read his legislation, it is a huge determining factor in several of his legislative attempts.
And it is not that I disagree with any specific law, I disagree with the idea that it is okay for states to infringe on constitutionally protected rights of citizens.
I think James Madison put it best in his letter to Thomas Jefferson on October 24 1787 where he specifically addressed the relationship between the newly formed Constitution and the rights of states...
A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects.
Ron Paul's efforts would undo the protections against state level oppression of rights and would be a regressive move for the United States as a representative democracy.
Forgot to mention, in reading through Ron's legislation there are several examples that in my opinion are egregious, these three are probably the worst.
1) Texas passes laws that are based on religious dogma, i.e. an anti sodomy law, to make it illegal for citizens to engage in private and personal activities that have no affect on any other citizen and is no business of any other citizen. 2) Complaints ensue and grievances are taken to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court rules the state laws are un-Constitutional and they are struck down. 4) A Congressional representative from Texas submits legislation that would remove the Supreme Court jurisdiction over any state law that has its foundation in religious dogma.
What exactly is the purpose of this legislation from Ron Paul that would remove Supreme Court jurisdiction over such idiotic and religion based laws?
It seems rather obvious that the purpose is to make it possible to implement religion based laws at the state level with impunity to the Constitution of the United States.
What do you call a state that is governed by religious laws? Let me help here, THEOCRACY.
You can try to make light of annexation of foreign land all you want but it is and always will be a shitty thing to do and from 1903 to 1999 when it was finally returned to Panama it was a source of contention with the people of Panama. And if the same were to happen on United States soil you would never hear the end to the shit storm and for good reason.
virtually all politicians support (anti-flag burning laws). Hell, most Americans in general support anti-flag burning laws (I don't)
I disapprove of flag burning but I am with you and do not support laws that infringe something as basic as freedom of speech.
But I also think it is important that we do not let people like Ron Paul make the mistake of taking away that right. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect those basic rights from mobs who would oppress us, why would Ron want to allow mobs to take it away?
First, I am not knocking Ron Paul, I am pointing out true, factual and verifiable legislative history.
Some of Ron's legislative history appears to contradict his rhetoric. Read it for yourself.
And I did not mention the other representatives because I did not notice them in the article whereas Ron Paul was.
Ron Paul has a very rabid following, you could watch the mod on my post jumping back and forth wildly between Troll and Insightful and all I did was post facts about his record. From what I have read in his followers posts I don't believe any of them have actually researched his legislative history and they make claims based solely on his rhetoric and I believe this is a mistake. I am only tempering his almost religious following with a bit of truth and history.
There is a significant difference between evacuating an entire society in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past and declaring a land grab nearly 30 years after an amenable solution was resolved.
The 1977 treaty with Panama was a well thought out plan to return control of foreign land that was acquired not through the Panamanian people but from a French diplomat who was involved in the overthrow of the Colombian government that was in control of Panama.
I only bring up Ron's record because many people actually have not bothered to research his legislative record and you need to be careful in what you ask for. I agree with many of Ron's statements and positions but in reading his legislative record I see some significant issues.
He simply wants to remove FEDERAL control over laws passed by the citizens of a particular state
Wrong, if you read his legislation the intention is to remove the Constitutional protections of individual's rights. There are plenty of examples of repressive regimes that do not have the same Constitutional protections for individual citizens, we don't need the same governance here.
the Panama Canal was built and paid for by the US - why SHOULDN'T we own it
The canal company was purchased by the United States under the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. It was purchased from a French diplomat who also negotiated and signed the treaty and not surprisingly the same diplomat had a part in funding the Panamanian rebellion that placed him in a position to negotiate the terms. From the beginning the treaty was a source of conflict for the people of Panama. This was finally resolved in 1977 but Ron's bill would circumvent the resolution and return the issue back to the days of French Imperialism.
I am atheist, it is about the truth and it is about Constitutional law that was put in place to protect individual liberty. The only role religion plays is in the fact that Ron Paul is using his religion as the driving force behind his desire to remove Constitutional protections for individual rights.
If the truth is denigrating then so be it. But my intention is simply to bring some truth and reality to the discussions on Ron Paul's political positions and actions.
And I think you are missing my point. I agree that we need to stop the wars of aggression but in reviewing Ron's legislative record it becomes apparent that he is not necessarily against aggressive Imperialistic land grabs from foreign nations. You may not see this as a serious issue to consider but I do and I am sure the people of the foreign nations Ron would target for annexation would also be concerned.
the left wants to protect a group whose goal is to keep women subservient to men
WTF?
If you are concerned about protecting against groups that would oppress minority groups then look very closely at Ron's legislation that attempts to remove Supreme Court jurisdiction over state statutes that are based on religious principles. Ron wants nothing short of state sponsored theocratic law with no impunity to the Constitution of the United States.
Technically Ron Paul is correct, I am not questioning the accuracy of his statements about declaring war and I fully support his stopping these illegal activities.
However, I think there is a great deal of naivety about his stance on nation building and intervention into foreign nations. Which is why I think it is important to read his congressional record and note his position on Panama.
Ron Paul has no problem trying to pass legislation to restore the imperialistic land grab perpetrated in 1903 when the United States signed a treaty with a French diplomat to give away sovereign territory to the United States.
I think there is a huge misunderstanding about Ron Paul's political position on "personal liberty". He does not support individual rights, he thinks that state government rather than federal government should be making the judgement calls. If you read his legislative record you will find examples of him trying to pass federal legislation that removes constitutional protections of individual rights and gives state governments the power to infringe on individual liberty with impunity.
I don't know about Rand Paul because he doesn't have the legislative history to form an opinion, from comments he has made I disagree with him in most cases.
However, Ron Paul does have an extensive legislative history and in fact is trying to revert the United States back to the Articles of Confederation where state government law can supersede federal law and the rights of individuals.
Case in point is his Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would remove citizens access to the third branch of the government, the Supreme Court, when addressing grievances against state laws that are religion based. This in effect will establish mob rules democracy at the state level and remove Constitutional law that protects citizens against such oppression.
My views are fairly close to yours, I see major moral and legal issues with abortion but I see room for acceptance based on situation and the length of the pregnancy. However, I am strongly against any ban on abortion because 1) many of the people trying to create a ban are basing it on their religion rather than any sane knowledge of biology, 2) nobody has the right to place absolute bans on something which they have no knowledge or understanding, 3) as you noted there are instances where abortion is a necessity and a ban will be equivalent to a death sentence to the mother or a horrific and painful life sentence for the child.
But I disagree with your conclusion on Ron Paul's philosophical position. Ron Paul's philosophy is not about freedom of the individual, which is the basis of the Constitution of the United States, his philosophy is freedom of State Governments to determine what rights citizens are allowed and which rights a state will infringe. I say infringe because the Constitution does not define an individual's rights but instead touches on the most obvious rights which it protects. Just because a state creates a law, say for example Ron Paul's dream of state laws forbidding the burning of the United States flag in protest or his dream of bringing back the Texas gay sex laws, it does not mean that the right does not exist, it just means the will of the local mob is enforced on the individual. This is Ron's philosophy.
Ron Paul makes popular statements about the big bad Federal government but gets a free pass on the real legislation he tries to ram through Congress that is designed specifically to give state government the right to infringe on citizens rights. Ron Paul is no friend of freedom nor the Constitution of the United States. In fact, James Madison noted that the infringement of citizen's rights by these "State's Rights" goons was likely the sole driving factor that made the Constitution of the United States possible...
A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects.
The Constitution of the United States was meant to protect against the flagrant oppression of mob democracy that was practised at the state level and that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to bring back. And whether they realise it or not Ron Paul supporters are supporting establishment of a Christian State Theocracy with oppressive religion based laws.
I think you have misunderstood Ron Paul's political position and his political objectives.
When you compare Ron Paul's speeches to his legislative record there are some glaring inconsistencies. What most people listening to Ron's speeches don't realise though is that the purpose of his speeches on Wikileaks, the Iraq war, etc. are not necessarily in defence or opposition to those causes, he is only taking advantage of what he sees an an opportunity to induce distrust, confusion and anger into the public mind when dealing with anything in the Federal government because Ron Paul wants to place state governments at the forefront of law and governance in the United States.
In 1997 Ron tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow states to make it illegal for citizens to deface the flag of the United States. Clearly an infringement of citizens rights to freedom of speech that are now protected by the Constitution of the United States.
In 1999 Ron tried to pass a congressional bill that would declare the land in Panama on which the Panama Canal resides as sovereign United States territory. This appears contradictory to statements he has made about recent wars but in reviewing his statements I think people misunderstand what he is saying, Ron Paul is not against Imperialist actions by the United States but he believes they are only legal if they are initiated by the Congress and not by the Executive Branch.
And the real humdinger, in 2003 Ron tried to remove the check and balance of the Supreme Court with legislation that would bar the Supreme Court from addressing citizen's grievances against unconstitutional state laws that arose from religious dogma. I think Ron dreamt this one up after a few Texas state laws were struck down by the Supreme Court like the Texas sodomy law that tried to outlaw gay sex.
The reality is that Ron Paul is against Constitutional law and wants nothing short of a return to the Articles of Confederation that allowed individual states to determine for themselves what rights would be protected and when it is okay for the majority to oppress the minority.
Before the 1st amendment was written, when the Constitution was written and ratified, it was already well understood that, contrary to your rewritten history, Constitutional Law from the beginning was meant to place in check the attacks of state governments on the individual rights of United States citizens. Your history is based on the Articles of Confederation which gave immeasurable rights to the states and was an absolute failure, the Constitution put an end to religious mobs creating laws that served their religious majority.
"A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects. A reform therefore which does not make provision for private rights, must be materially defective."
And it was fully understood that of the many distinctions that separate individuals into groups and result in oppression religion is one of those "erroneous or ridiculous" differences that a lesser human would use as grounds to oppress.
"In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light. It remains then to be enquired whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority."
And it was known that some would question the ability of a central government to protect the rights of individuals better than a state government. And the answer was simple, a government must have an extensive sphere of influence to protect all individuals.
"It may be asked how private rights will be more secure under the Guardianship of the General Government than under the State Governments, since they are both founded on the republican principle which refers the ultimate decision to the will of the majority, and are distinguished rather by the extent within which they will operate, than by any material difference in their structure. A full discussion of this question would, if I mistake not, unfold the true principles of Republican Government, and prove in contradiction to the concurrent opinions of theoretical writers, that this form of Goverment, in order to effect its purposes, must operate not within a small but an extensive sphere."
And has history has shown religion stands out as one of the greatest sources of oppression therefore justifying a strong central government that supersedes the power of the state governments to protect the citizens from the religious zealots.
"Will two thousand individuals be less apt to oppress one thousand, or two hundred thousand, one hundred thousand? Three motives only can restrain in such cases. 1. a prudent regard to private or partial good, as essentially involved in the general and permanent good of the whole. This ought no doubt to be sufficient of itself. Experience however shews that it has little effect on individuals, and perhaps still less on a collection of individuals, and least of all on a majority with the public authority in their hands. If the former are rea
You don't actually believe that given higher prices and less consumption that corporations will stop manufacturing their products under the most environmentally unfriendly and humanly detrimental conditions in order to maximize a profit, do you?
The driving factor for many of the ills today is one thing and one thing only, an insatiable greed of a tiny portion of the population who are not satisfied with a comfortable life, an elite life, not even an opulent life, nope, the objective is nothing less than total and complete serfdom of every last human being around them with every last penny of possible profit transferred to their pockets. We are talking about greed on a level and magnitude that would drive Clark Griswold to the obvious conclusion about the mental state of these humans.
Perhaps I am misreading you but it appears from your post that long haul travel will not be feasible due to the demand on remote recharge stations that do not have the necessary power distribution to support the charging. My response is that remote stations will be able to provide recharging by storing up energy when they are not recharging vehicles and I will add that the demand on a remote recharge station will not be the same as the station in an urban area that recharges 200 cars per day.
And again, this idea that it is infeasible because the demand requirements are too big is bogus because there will not be an over night transition to electric cars in the same way that there was not an over night transition away from electric cars in the early 1900s when electric cars were more practical than gasoline cars.
And I actually do have an understanding and respect for the energy density of liquid fuels, it is today virtually unbeatable as a means of storage. However, it is not necessary to match or beat liquid fuel energy density for electric cars to be feasible, they need to match cost, convenience and purpose performance (driving from point A to point B).
We don't really have a significant electric car market, actually we don't have an electric car market period, but already the prices of some viable cars are starting to look possible for an average car buyer and if breakthroughs like the one noted in the article are real then the energy density difference becomes less of an issue due to the combination of the new battery capabilities and the already significantly better energy use efficiency of electric cars over gasoline.
A starship that reliant on parts is not very sustainable is it.
Making the trip take longer really doesn't reduce the energy needed, because the ship must become correspondingly larger
Based on your assumptions. But your pessimism does lead to other energy questions. In particular, what are the long term energy requirements of a self sustaining starship? Depending on the energy source and the energy needs it may be a long time or perhaps impossible to every consider interstellar travel of any duration.
Of course we do not have the scientific knowledge or technology today that is necessary to build such a ship so it is a difficult question to answer. However, pursuit of the science and technology that would make such a ship possible and provide an answer to that question and others is worthwhile and I suspect would even be profitable for those who base all their decisions on profit motives.
I never understood how the free market electric power was going to work. Somebody still has to pay for the infrastructure and you don't get multiple companies running multiple wires down the street.
The power grid and power plants in the United States are not a public utility.
I have no idea where you lived in California but it is a well know and documented fact that in 2000 and 2001 Enron and others colluded to cause wide spread rolling blackouts in California and this had a significant effect on energy dependent businesses like manufacturing and information services.
The electrical power rationing and market manipulation in California was not caused by the evil government it was caused by greedy, unethical, and criminal corporations.
And if you think the government cannot ration fuel supplies then you are dreaming because it has already occurred.
The fact is that with electrical power generation there are many options for the end user to produce their own energy which cannot be rationed by the government or corporations. Oil based energy can and is controlled and rationed by government and corporations.
While that article was interesting to read when I hit the following point it was obvious that it was mostly just mental masturbation...
they are going to have zero net economic impact on our circumstances (except insofar as sending them out costs us money).
So first off, while economic benefits from scientific exploration and discovery are common and gladly accepted, the root purpose of science is not to make a buck. Yes it can make it easier to get those who have no interest in science, knowledge or the progress of the human race to chip in as a bet that they may get some extra cash to pay for a few more hookers and wild coke parties in luxurious hotels but it is not the goal of science.
Setting aside that obvious misnomer the article then places some superfluous requirements on interstellar travel, i.e. it must be completed well within a persons lifetime and the sole objective is the habitable planet. I suspect that such an endeavor would incorporate more than a lifetime of scientific objectives and would involve not an as fast as feasible capsule with one human trapped in a can for 40 years but instead would be a self sustained ship on a continuous voyage with a population of humans. That may sound even more infeasible than the 40 year trip in a tin can but that is why we need to first establish bases in our solar system to expand our knowledge and technology to make such a ship and voyage possible.
I am curious about the self-discharge rate as well, I don't drive much and the lead acid battery in my car can get weak when I finally do go out and fire up the engine.
If you live in the boonies then you have to adjust, an electric car may not be an option for you or you may need to invest in your own scaled down storage system much like many people who live in the boonies already do for gasoline, diesel, propane, etc.
As far as the fear of public utilities, get over it and be careful what you wish for. In the United States much of the power generation and distribution is privately owned but publicly regulated. In the mid 1990s to the early 2000s the "free market" ideology was pushed by an almost religious devotion and the end result was problems like Enron and criminal manipulation of the energy market that created energy price increases based on greed driven market manipulation and the destruction of companies in places like California where price increases and rolling blackouts were caused not by regulation, excessive demand, or any real "free market", no, it was complete manipulation of the market on a level that is criminally insane, i.e. shutting down power generation facilities unnecessarily to create a fake scarcity of supply or booking fake demand orders on distribution to make it appear demand out stripped supply when in fact it did not.
Keep this in mind, you do need to be careful about handing power over to public representatives but by the very nature of a democratic elected republic you can always vote for change, however, once you had the power over to an unregulated and lawless "capitalist" you have no say, you have no vote, you either give in to their demands no matter how rabidly insane or you diminish into obscurity and serfdom.
More expensive and inefficient than drilling for oil, refining it, and paying for a multi-trillion dollar military with air craft carriers, predator drones, tanks, humvees, body armor, etc. to maintain "national interests"?
While the build out of power plants may sound scary it is important to keep it in the context of reality, people are not going to change from gasoline cars to electric cars over night not even within a few years. The build out of power generation will only need to grow with the demand.
And the issue of long haul trips and fast charging is also bogus because the same trickle charge that works at home would also be implemented at the station in the form of storage. Assuming recharge stations would need instantaneous demand from the power distribution system is like assuming gasoline stations must rely on an instantaneous supply of tanker trucks to refill cars. Obviously the gasoline refuelling stations do not use on demand tanker trucks, they use storage, and the same goes for recharge stations, they will need storage facilities engineered and installed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong answer, in 2003 the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
Actually yes, but obviously it is not as simple as the cost of building the canal and calculating in inflation, there are substantial monetary benefits that were gained by many other nations and many corporations. It may turn out the way you think it will.
No, Ron Paul brought religion into the argument, read his legislation, it is a huge determining factor in several of his legislative attempts.
And it is not that I disagree with any specific law, I disagree with the idea that it is okay for states to infringe on constitutionally protected rights of citizens.
I think James Madison put it best in his letter to Thomas Jefferson on October 24 1787 where he specifically addressed the relationship between the newly formed Constitution and the rights of states...
Ron Paul's efforts would undo the protections against state level oppression of rights and would be a regressive move for the United States as a representative democracy.
Forgot to mention, in reading through Ron's legislation there are several examples that in my opinion are egregious, these three are probably the worst.
1) Texas passes laws that are based on religious dogma, i.e. an anti sodomy law, to make it illegal for citizens to engage in private and personal activities that have no affect on any other citizen and is no business of any other citizen.
2) Complaints ensue and grievances are taken to the Supreme Court.
3) The Supreme Court rules the state laws are un-Constitutional and they are struck down.
4) A Congressional representative from Texas submits legislation that would remove the Supreme Court jurisdiction over any state law that has its foundation in religious dogma.
What exactly is the purpose of this legislation from Ron Paul that would remove Supreme Court jurisdiction over such idiotic and religion based laws?
It seems rather obvious that the purpose is to make it possible to implement religion based laws at the state level with impunity to the Constitution of the United States.
What do you call a state that is governed by religious laws? Let me help here, THEOCRACY.
You can try to make light of annexation of foreign land all you want but it is and always will be a shitty thing to do and from 1903 to 1999 when it was finally returned to Panama it was a source of contention with the people of Panama. And if the same were to happen on United States soil you would never hear the end to the shit storm and for good reason.
I disapprove of flag burning but I am with you and do not support laws that infringe something as basic as freedom of speech.
But I also think it is important that we do not let people like Ron Paul make the mistake of taking away that right. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect those basic rights from mobs who would oppress us, why would Ron want to allow mobs to take it away?
First, I am not knocking Ron Paul, I am pointing out true, factual and verifiable legislative history.
Some of Ron's legislative history appears to contradict his rhetoric. Read it for yourself.
And I did not mention the other representatives because I did not notice them in the article whereas Ron Paul was.
Ron Paul has a very rabid following, you could watch the mod on my post jumping back and forth wildly between Troll and Insightful and all I did was post facts about his record. From what I have read in his followers posts I don't believe any of them have actually researched his legislative history and they make claims based solely on his rhetoric and I believe this is a mistake. I am only tempering his almost religious following with a bit of truth and history.
There is a significant difference between evacuating an entire society in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past and declaring a land grab nearly 30 years after an amenable solution was resolved.
The 1977 treaty with Panama was a well thought out plan to return control of foreign land that was acquired not through the Panamanian people but from a French diplomat who was involved in the overthrow of the Colombian government that was in control of Panama.
I only bring up Ron's record because many people actually have not bothered to research his legislative record and you need to be careful in what you ask for. I agree with many of Ron's statements and positions but in reading his legislative record I see some significant issues.
Wrong, if you read his legislation the intention is to remove the Constitutional protections of individual's rights. There are plenty of examples of repressive regimes that do not have the same Constitutional protections for individual citizens, we don't need the same governance here.
The canal company was purchased by the United States under the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. It was purchased from a French diplomat who also negotiated and signed the treaty and not surprisingly the same diplomat had a part in funding the Panamanian rebellion that placed him in a position to negotiate the terms. From the beginning the treaty was a source of conflict for the people of Panama. This was finally resolved in 1977 but Ron's bill would circumvent the resolution and return the issue back to the days of French Imperialism.
I am atheist, it is about the truth and it is about Constitutional law that was put in place to protect individual liberty. The only role religion plays is in the fact that Ron Paul is using his religion as the driving force behind his desire to remove Constitutional protections for individual rights.
If the truth is denigrating then so be it. But my intention is simply to bring some truth and reality to the discussions on Ron Paul's political positions and actions.
And I think you are missing my point. I agree that we need to stop the wars of aggression but in reviewing Ron's legislative record it becomes apparent that he is not necessarily against aggressive Imperialistic land grabs from foreign nations. You may not see this as a serious issue to consider but I do and I am sure the people of the foreign nations Ron would target for annexation would also be concerned.
WTF?
If you are concerned about protecting against groups that would oppress minority groups then look very closely at Ron's legislation that attempts to remove Supreme Court jurisdiction over state statutes that are based on religious principles. Ron wants nothing short of state sponsored theocratic law with no impunity to the Constitution of the United States.
Technically Ron Paul is correct, I am not questioning the accuracy of his statements about declaring war and I fully support his stopping these illegal activities.
However, I think there is a great deal of naivety about his stance on nation building and intervention into foreign nations. Which is why I think it is important to read his congressional record and note his position on Panama.
I prefer to rely on Ron Paul's legislative history rather than his speeches or books.
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States
Ron Paul has no problem trying to pass legislation to restore the imperialistic land grab perpetrated in 1903 when the United States signed a treaty with a French diplomat to give away sovereign territory to the United States.
I think there is a huge misunderstanding about Ron Paul's political position on "personal liberty". He does not support individual rights, he thinks that state government rather than federal government should be making the judgement calls. If you read his legislative record you will find examples of him trying to pass federal legislation that removes constitutional protections of individual rights and gives state governments the power to infringe on individual liberty with impunity.
I don't know about Rand Paul because he doesn't have the legislative history to form an opinion, from comments he has made I disagree with him in most cases.
However, Ron Paul does have an extensive legislative history and in fact is trying to revert the United States back to the Articles of Confederation where state government law can supersede federal law and the rights of individuals.
Case in point is his Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would remove citizens access to the third branch of the government, the Supreme Court, when addressing grievances against state laws that are religion based. This in effect will establish mob rules democracy at the state level and remove Constitutional law that protects citizens against such oppression.
My views are fairly close to yours, I see major moral and legal issues with abortion but I see room for acceptance based on situation and the length of the pregnancy. However, I am strongly against any ban on abortion because 1) many of the people trying to create a ban are basing it on their religion rather than any sane knowledge of biology, 2) nobody has the right to place absolute bans on something which they have no knowledge or understanding, 3) as you noted there are instances where abortion is a necessity and a ban will be equivalent to a death sentence to the mother or a horrific and painful life sentence for the child.
But I disagree with your conclusion on Ron Paul's philosophical position. Ron Paul's philosophy is not about freedom of the individual, which is the basis of the Constitution of the United States, his philosophy is freedom of State Governments to determine what rights citizens are allowed and which rights a state will infringe. I say infringe because the Constitution does not define an individual's rights but instead touches on the most obvious rights which it protects. Just because a state creates a law, say for example Ron Paul's dream of state laws forbidding the burning of the United States flag in protest or his dream of bringing back the Texas gay sex laws, it does not mean that the right does not exist, it just means the will of the local mob is enforced on the individual. This is Ron's philosophy.
Exactly.
Ron Paul makes popular statements about the big bad Federal government but gets a free pass on the real legislation he tries to ram through Congress that is designed specifically to give state government the right to infringe on citizens rights. Ron Paul is no friend of freedom nor the Constitution of the United States. In fact, James Madison noted that the infringement of citizen's rights by these "State's Rights" goons was likely the sole driving factor that made the Constitution of the United States possible...
James Madison, October 24 1787
The Constitution of the United States was meant to protect against the flagrant oppression of mob democracy that was practised at the state level and that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to bring back. And whether they realise it or not Ron Paul supporters are supporting establishment of a Christian State Theocracy with oppressive religion based laws.
These are some pertinent Ron Paul bills that highlight his true political nature:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress...
I think you have misunderstood Ron Paul's political position and his political objectives.
When you compare Ron Paul's speeches to his legislative record there are some glaring inconsistencies. What most people listening to Ron's speeches don't realise though is that the purpose of his speeches on Wikileaks, the Iraq war, etc. are not necessarily in defence or opposition to those causes, he is only taking advantage of what he sees an an opportunity to induce distrust, confusion and anger into the public mind when dealing with anything in the Federal government because Ron Paul wants to place state governments at the forefront of law and governance in the United States.
In 1997 Ron tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow states to make it illegal for citizens to deface the flag of the United States. Clearly an infringement of citizens rights to freedom of speech that are now protected by the Constitution of the United States.
In 1999 Ron tried to pass a congressional bill that would declare the land in Panama on which the Panama Canal resides as sovereign United States territory. This appears contradictory to statements he has made about recent wars but in reviewing his statements I think people misunderstand what he is saying, Ron Paul is not against Imperialist actions by the United States but he believes they are only legal if they are initiated by the Congress and not by the Executive Branch.
And the real humdinger, in 2003 Ron tried to remove the check and balance of the Supreme Court with legislation that would bar the Supreme Court from addressing citizen's grievances against unconstitutional state laws that arose from religious dogma. I think Ron dreamt this one up after a few Texas state laws were struck down by the Supreme Court like the Texas sodomy law that tried to outlaw gay sex.
The reality is that Ron Paul is against Constitutional law and wants nothing short of a return to the Articles of Confederation that allowed individual states to determine for themselves what rights would be protected and when it is okay for the majority to oppress the minority.
Before the 1st amendment was written, when the Constitution was written and ratified, it was already well understood that, contrary to your rewritten history, Constitutional Law from the beginning was meant to place in check the attacks of state governments on the individual rights of United States citizens. Your history is based on the Articles of Confederation which gave immeasurable rights to the states and was an absolute failure, the Constitution put an end to religious mobs creating laws that served their religious majority.
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson
24 Oct. 1787
"A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects. A reform therefore which does not make provision for private rights, must be materially defective."
And it was fully understood that of the many distinctions that separate individuals into groups and result in oppression religion is one of those "erroneous or ridiculous" differences that a lesser human would use as grounds to oppress.
"In addition to these natural distinctions, artificial ones will be founded, on accidental differences in political, religious or other opinions, or an attachment to the persons of leading individuals. However erroneous or ridiculous these grounds of dissention and faction, may appear to the enlightened Statesman, or the benevolent philosopher, the bulk of mankind who are neither Statesmen nor Philosophers, will continue to view them in a different light. It remains then to be enquired whether a majority having any common interest, or feeling any common passion, will find sufficient motives to restrain them from oppressing the minority."
And it was known that some would question the ability of a central government to protect the rights of individuals better than a state government. And the answer was simple, a government must have an extensive sphere of influence to protect all individuals.
"It may be asked how private rights will be more secure under the Guardianship of the General Government than under the State Governments, since they are both founded on the republican principle which refers the ultimate decision to the will of the majority, and are distinguished rather by the extent within which they will operate, than by any material difference in their structure. A full discussion of this question would, if I mistake not, unfold the true principles of Republican Government, and prove in contradiction to the concurrent opinions of theoretical writers, that this form of Goverment, in order to effect its purposes, must operate not within a small but an extensive sphere."
And has history has shown religion stands out as one of the greatest sources of oppression therefore justifying a strong central government that supersedes the power of the state governments to protect the citizens from the religious zealots.
"Will two thousand individuals be less apt to oppress one thousand, or two hundred thousand, one hundred thousand? Three motives only can restrain in such cases. 1. a prudent regard to private or partial good, as essentially involved in the general and permanent good of the whole. This ought no doubt to be sufficient of itself. Experience however shews that it has little effect on individuals, and perhaps still less on a collection of individuals, and least of all on a majority with the public authority in their hands. If the former are rea
This comment and its mod rating clearly justifies the mod rating of a comment a few threads up...
If humans screw up the earth to the point where it becomes unlivable, our species deserves to just become extinct.
Selfish, greedy, self centered children, no matter what their age may be.
You don't actually believe that given higher prices and less consumption that corporations will stop manufacturing their products under the most environmentally unfriendly and humanly detrimental conditions in order to maximize a profit, do you?
The driving factor for many of the ills today is one thing and one thing only, an insatiable greed of a tiny portion of the population who are not satisfied with a comfortable life, an elite life, not even an opulent life, nope, the objective is nothing less than total and complete serfdom of every last human being around them with every last penny of possible profit transferred to their pockets. We are talking about greed on a level and magnitude that would drive Clark Griswold to the obvious conclusion about the mental state of these humans.
You forgot the <sarcasm> tags or should it be <stupidity> tags.
Perhaps I am misreading you but it appears from your post that long haul travel will not be feasible due to the demand on remote recharge stations that do not have the necessary power distribution to support the charging. My response is that remote stations will be able to provide recharging by storing up energy when they are not recharging vehicles and I will add that the demand on a remote recharge station will not be the same as the station in an urban area that recharges 200 cars per day.
And again, this idea that it is infeasible because the demand requirements are too big is bogus because there will not be an over night transition to electric cars in the same way that there was not an over night transition away from electric cars in the early 1900s when electric cars were more practical than gasoline cars.
And I actually do have an understanding and respect for the energy density of liquid fuels, it is today virtually unbeatable as a means of storage. However, it is not necessary to match or beat liquid fuel energy density for electric cars to be feasible, they need to match cost, convenience and purpose performance (driving from point A to point B).
We don't really have a significant electric car market, actually we don't have an electric car market period, but already the prices of some viable cars are starting to look possible for an average car buyer and if breakthroughs like the one noted in the article are real then the energy density difference becomes less of an issue due to the combination of the new battery capabilities and the already significantly better energy use efficiency of electric cars over gasoline.
A starship that reliant on parts is not very sustainable is it.
Based on your assumptions. But your pessimism does lead to other energy questions. In particular, what are the long term energy requirements of a self sustaining starship? Depending on the energy source and the energy needs it may be a long time or perhaps impossible to every consider interstellar travel of any duration.
Of course we do not have the scientific knowledge or technology today that is necessary to build such a ship so it is a difficult question to answer. However, pursuit of the science and technology that would make such a ship possible and provide an answer to that question and others is worthwhile and I suspect would even be profitable for those who base all their decisions on profit motives.
I think my post was not clear, the majority of power generation and distribution is privately owned and operated. Investor owned and independent power producers account for 75% of power generation and investor owned utilities own 80% of transmission lines and systems.
The power grid and power plants in the United States are not a public utility.
I have no idea where you lived in California but it is a well know and documented fact that in 2000 and 2001 Enron and others colluded to cause wide spread rolling blackouts in California and this had a significant effect on energy dependent businesses like manufacturing and information services.
The electrical power rationing and market manipulation in California was not caused by the evil government it was caused by greedy, unethical, and criminal corporations.
And if you think the government cannot ration fuel supplies then you are dreaming because it has already occurred.
The fact is that with electrical power generation there are many options for the end user to produce their own energy which cannot be rationed by the government or corporations. Oil based energy can and is controlled and rationed by government and corporations.
While that article was interesting to read when I hit the following point it was obvious that it was mostly just mental masturbation...
So first off, while economic benefits from scientific exploration and discovery are common and gladly accepted, the root purpose of science is not to make a buck. Yes it can make it easier to get those who have no interest in science, knowledge or the progress of the human race to chip in as a bet that they may get some extra cash to pay for a few more hookers and wild coke parties in luxurious hotels but it is not the goal of science.
Setting aside that obvious misnomer the article then places some superfluous requirements on interstellar travel, i.e. it must be completed well within a persons lifetime and the sole objective is the habitable planet. I suspect that such an endeavor would incorporate more than a lifetime of scientific objectives and would involve not an as fast as feasible capsule with one human trapped in a can for 40 years but instead would be a self sustained ship on a continuous voyage with a population of humans. That may sound even more infeasible than the 40 year trip in a tin can but that is why we need to first establish bases in our solar system to expand our knowledge and technology to make such a ship and voyage possible.
I am curious about the self-discharge rate as well, I don't drive much and the lead acid battery in my car can get weak when I finally do go out and fire up the engine.
If you live in the boonies then you have to adjust, an electric car may not be an option for you or you may need to invest in your own scaled down storage system much like many people who live in the boonies already do for gasoline, diesel, propane, etc.
As far as the fear of public utilities, get over it and be careful what you wish for. In the United States much of the power generation and distribution is privately owned but publicly regulated. In the mid 1990s to the early 2000s the "free market" ideology was pushed by an almost religious devotion and the end result was problems like Enron and criminal manipulation of the energy market that created energy price increases based on greed driven market manipulation and the destruction of companies in places like California where price increases and rolling blackouts were caused not by regulation, excessive demand, or any real "free market", no, it was complete manipulation of the market on a level that is criminally insane, i.e. shutting down power generation facilities unnecessarily to create a fake scarcity of supply or booking fake demand orders on distribution to make it appear demand out stripped supply when in fact it did not.
Keep this in mind, you do need to be careful about handing power over to public representatives but by the very nature of a democratic elected republic you can always vote for change, however, once you had the power over to an unregulated and lawless "capitalist" you have no say, you have no vote, you either give in to their demands no matter how rabidly insane or you diminish into obscurity and serfdom.
More expensive and inefficient than drilling for oil, refining it, and paying for a multi-trillion dollar military with air craft carriers, predator drones, tanks, humvees, body armor, etc. to maintain "national interests"?
While the build out of power plants may sound scary it is important to keep it in the context of reality, people are not going to change from gasoline cars to electric cars over night not even within a few years. The build out of power generation will only need to grow with the demand.
And the issue of long haul trips and fast charging is also bogus because the same trickle charge that works at home would also be implemented at the station in the form of storage. Assuming recharge stations would need instantaneous demand from the power distribution system is like assuming gasoline stations must rely on an instantaneous supply of tanker trucks to refill cars. Obviously the gasoline refuelling stations do not use on demand tanker trucks, they use storage, and the same goes for recharge stations, they will need storage facilities engineered and installed.