For the Record: Recent Debate with a Ron Paul Supporter

Why I'[m NOT voting for Ron Paul: http://aquilamagna.blogspot.com/2012/03/simple-reason-why-im-voting-for-rick.html.

·  Michael Ghighi · Buchanan, Michigan

And exactly where in the Constitution does it say that marijuana, gay marriage, & prostitution are forbidden by law?? I don't do any of the 3 myself, but do you really think that making laws prohibiting responsible adults from smoking weed, or marrying someone of the same sex, of paying someone who is of legal age for sexual relations does any good? Alcohol is not necessarily good for you either, but what happened back in the 1920's when we tried to outlaw that ?? Prohibition was one of the most miserable failures in our nation's history if I remember correctly. "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

-Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) U.S. President.

Speech, 18 Dec. 1840, to Illinois House of Representatives

Reply · Like · about an hour ago

· 

Masta Pay · Top Commenter · Volunteer at Students for Rick Santorum

Michael, this is a legal positivist argument. <<<YAAAAWWWNNN!>>> The Declaration and Constitution as the Framers intended were founded on the natural moral law. The problem with libertarianism is that it interprets life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to mean the right to do whatever you'd like. This is not American in age of moral relativism. It is well-meaning, but not according to the mind of the Founders, which is a case that Rick makes and is valid. Happiness in the mind of the Founders means the pursuit of virtue, it does not mean the license to do whatever you want just as long as it's okay or not okay in the Constitution. I don't disagree with your prohibitionist evidence, but I do not think that this quote undermines my point. I also maintain that it actually supports the natural moral law argument because the President of the United States doesn't just execute the laws, but he is a moral leader, as Lincoln was and knew when he fought to abolish slavery. The abolition of injustices like slavery, or legalized prostitution/drugs/abortion/etc. is based on the natural moral law. It is not neutral. The law is a teacher, my friend, but it is also intended for government to restrain evil from becoming institutionalized. Consequently, yes, we must restrain legal prostitution and legalized recreational drugs, and yes we must protect traditional marriage by promoting family-friendly tax codes as Rick suggest, and even having a federal amendment protecting the unborn. All human law, as in the case of a federal balanced budget amendment which Rick promotes, has its authority in the natural moral law. Finally, the argument above isn't a case for big government, which supporters of Dr. Paul seem to construe, but a case for virtue in a representative democracy. I also want to ask you why you support an isolationist candidate? I agree that we can't police the world, but doesn't America play a role in fighting tyranny in its foreign policy? Isn't America the last beacon of hope on earth for people oppressed by Socialism and Communism around the world?