US Official Urges Americans To Reconsider Privacy 515
Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, a deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that," said Kerr. Kurt Opsahl of the EFF said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service. "There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties. We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy." Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, requiring a court order for surveillance on U.S. soil. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.
"Fundamentally different" (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties."
The difference being that while I trust no one, I trust the government with the information even less, because they have the power to screw me over to such a greater degree.
Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, lets 'redfine' privacy to mean "we know what you do, we will just be responsible with the information"
Attend Next Spring's Political Caucuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Attend your local caucus or convention and try to get elected as a delegate to the state convention.
Introduce resolutions that value freedom and privacy. Lobby to get them passed.
Send a message to Washington: Privacy is important. Anonymity is an essential part of privacy.
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Surveillance on U.S. soil (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, about googling your own name; I just did that and although there were over 1.5 million results, none of them were about me as far as I could tell
I guess I should be relieved, although I'm kind of disappointed that I'm not important enough to have my privacy violated.
He does have a point (Score:3, Insightful)
More than this
Outlawing google also seems like a stupid thing to do.
He just makes the point that we can't have it both ways. We can't have a searchable internet and the privacy standards of 1960. It just doesn't compute.
Barry (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Donald Kerr
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
-- Barry Goldwater
US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration has shit all over the Constitution and this country. They have committed treason.
Government having private data... (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy is basically advertising a surveilance state, were everybody has to trust the government without reserve. Not a good idea. Historically that has always lead to a catastrophy. Unfortunately there will not be any allied armies to free the US population. I advise to stop this now with all possible legal means. A free society has to live with a real risk of terrorism. That is what makes it free: People have the freedom to go bad. If you remove that freedom, you cause much, much more damage that terrorists ever could do directly. All this "war on terror" is really a power-grap in disguise by power-hungry people without even a shred of ethics. You do not want to be ruled by this type of evil.
This man is a coward. (Score:5, Insightful)
We will struggle, those that believe in liberty and freedom, against the tides that would try to drown us with rationalisms, excuses, and the madness of fealty to the corrupt and mindless sycophants of government.
There was a reason the founding fathers worded their documents they way that they did-- there was another King George that tried to shove fealty down our throats. This minor duke in his administration would have us believe that liberty and freedom != anonymity. He is wrong.
Here's an example of Kerr's logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, I don't need to read beyond this. Does the US have a privacy problem with personal data held by corporations without regulation? Yes. Does the US have a privacy problem with novel government surveillance methods without (serious) oversight? Hell Yes. Can one be used to excuse the other in any way shape or form? Hell no!
This guy should not be the standard bearer for the dialog that the US needs to have over privacy in the age of information technology.
...and? (Score:2, Insightful)
security? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, that pretty much constitutes the definition of "trust". You share secrets with people you trust. What these political trolls are asking us to do is trust the government---yet on nearly every occasion in the past, they have proven utterly unworthy of that trust. Hell, they can't even keep computers from walking away from Lawrence Livermore National Labs. If we can't even trust them to keep their own nuclear secrets safe, how can we possibly be expected to trust them to keep our private information safe?
This is literally the epitome of the phrase "wolf guarding the henhouse". The entire purpose of large parts of our Bill of Rights is to protect the citizens from our own government---to ensure that the government cannot do precisely what this person is asking us to let it do.
So my question to anyone seriously considering his statement is this: What ever happened to "I... will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? Are those mere words, or do they mean something? Because if we give in to this tyranny, we are saying that those are mere words---that the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, of the Bill of Rights---indeed, the spirit of America---is nothing more than a statement of naive ideals to be respected only when it is convenient.
No, this is not the time to cave in. Indeed, it is when we are most threatened that we must most firmly cling to our principles. It is easy to do the right thing when it is convenient; only the truly good continue to do good when it is hard. It is time that we as a nation stand up and tell the world, "This is what we believe. This is who we are as a nation." Are we going to be a nation of fear? Are we going to be a nation of paranoia, not trusting our neighbors and telling the government every time they sneeze in the interests of protecting ourselves? Are we going to be a nation of terrified little children who cower in our beds out of fear that the big bad terrorist boogeyman will get us? Or are we going to be a proud nation standing strong as a beacon of freedom and light to a darkened world?
A time of great tribulation is upon us. Everyone must choose a side. Will you choose the side of right---of freedom---or the side of wrong---of tyranny, oppression, and fear? Only you can decide. As for me, I choose the side of truth. To Mr. Kerr, I'm sorry if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are inconvenient for you, but maybe, just maybe, that is because you're doing something you shouldn't be doing in the first place. If you can't see that, I pity you.
Re:The US is not the entire planet. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is news? America's biggest enemy is definitely within. It is lack of education and an easily terrified populace that can be manipulated with a few "support our troops" and "with us or agin' us" slogans.
I think Osama bin Laden hit the jackpot with his 9/11 attack. He spent some 19 lives and a few tens of thousands of dollars and in return, he, through the current moronic, paranoid, and opportunistic administration, has thoroughly destroyed what used to be the most powerful and respected Nation on earth.
The real trick (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Fundamentally different" (Score:3, Insightful)
The privacy right has been judicially created (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government wants to change what privacy means to THEM, they need a constitutional amendment.
The "right of privacy" is a judicial construct. I'm not saying that it is a bad construct, but you'll never see the word "privacy" in the Constitution. In interpreting the 4th Amendment, the Supreme Court has constructed a Constitutional protection of privacy. Maybe the definition of "activist judges" depends on where you sit. Anyway, the courts have acknowledged that this is an implicit, rather than explicit right.
Legislative acts have also defined privacy in their own ways, but the term "privacy" is a difficult one to define with precision when we're dealing with electronic communications. If the limits of privacy are no longer defined by your physical presence, how far does your right to privacy extend? With so much of our lives being lived online, would excessive provisions for privacy actually extend the doctrine further than it was originally intended?
Another question: We place our trust in Google every time we use its services, but why do we place more trust in a profit-maximizing enterprise than in our own government? Ostensibly we can hold our government accountable through elections, but we have less influence on corporations. Sure, we have the power of the wallet, but when's the last time you saw an effective consumer boycott in the information economy?
And very subtly, very delicately... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you believe ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you believe you can have privacy, security and anonyminity you are wrong. You might get any two of those. Maybe.
Privacy and anonymity are essentially the same thing. A USSC ruling even stated this in the early 1800s. If a person couldn't reasonable expect to keep their privacy then freedom of political speech didn't mean anything. Without remaining anonymous people wouldn't be willing to talk openly about politics for fear what they say can be used against them. I think the appropriate third word is "cheap" though "fast" is good too.
FalconLiberty First, Security Second [..or fifth] (Score:2, Insightful)
I must add, that I think they're lying anyway. They will use that excuse to get greater control and a lot of feeble minds right now are bowing to the security threat bs. Grow a backbone already and tell these clowns to get stuffed.
Re:This man is a coward. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me tell you about the other heros that also protested the Viet Nam War for the travesty it had become as others were conscripted (and enslaved) to fight. Or perhaps those that looked with incredulity at the hoaxed evidence of 'WMD' in Iraq-- knowing that many thousands of soldier lives would be lost in vain, not to mention Afgani and Iraqi lives-- and the lives of US allies.
Let me tell you about having principles, not a squishy bowl of jelly for guts in the face of those that would compromise liberty, civil rights, and freedom with responsibility for these.
Many people have, and will understand the value of liberty, once lost. Should you wish subjugation, sit still and don't do anything.
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Look: either the government pervades your life, or it does not.
The debate is healthy, though. Perhaps it will lead to clearer rules of engagement on security and privacy. If you're tasked with ensuring security, you really want clear ROE, so that the next time Mr. Extremist makes history, you can say: "Well, that sucked, but that was the way the public wanted to manage the probabilities."
How about trying something different? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, software as a service and registration based software are two of the biggest perpetrators of data and privacy violations. They take away your right to manage who knows what about you, forcing you to provide whatever data the "service provider" chooses or dictates that they "need".
1) Make it illegal to force consumers to turn over private information unless it's a functional requirement of the process (not just data mining or marketing enhancement)
2) Make it illegal for companies to sell or share ANY personally identifiable data they collect, even names, phone numbers, and addresses.
3) Dismantle companies that violate privacy laws, retain identifiable customer data, or insist on data that is not a necessity to do business.
It's pretty simple! You own YOUR OWN data. No one else has a right to it. No one can force you to turn it over to do business with them unless it's a functional necessity of doing business and not just a preference. Anyone that violates privacy laws is dismantled.
BUT! BUT! It won't happen, because we live in a fascist corporate pathocracy where companies and money rule politics, the individual citizen, nay citizens period, are not considered, asked, or involved in any decisions, and THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOUR DATA ALSO. So they can spy on you. It's all to protect YOU from the "terrists" you know.
Nevermind the true terrorists are OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.
Vague "terrorist threats", data mining, advertising, marketing, and "revenue enhancement" ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE REASONS TO DISMANTLE PRIVACY. Money and fear are NEVER reasons to willingly accept oppression or subordination.
Fight for your rights, America. Our rights aren't what some company claims they will recognize, or what our government claims they will 'allow'. These are inherent to our existence, and they are for US to decide, not someone else. Fight for your rights! Wake up before it's too late.
Without Anonymity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US Citizens Urge US Officials to Re-Think Treas (Score:5, Insightful)
What scares us is that you shitheads let them get away with it. You almost impeached a president for lying about a blowjob, but you don't take down an administration that is actively dismantling everything your ancestors fought and died for.
Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 (sadly mistaken) (Score:2, Insightful)
Issues like this go to court, courts are driven by lawyers, lawyers are not ever not even slightly interested in the truth, or what is right (morally/ethically or otherwise). They are only interested in proving whatever their client is paying them to prove.
No. You're wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is affirmed by the 9th Amendment, although the right exists independently of it.
You're the sort of person for whom the Bill of Rights was added, because you simply don't understand the concept. The Constitution gives the Federal Government no power to intrude on privacy, therefore the right is retained by the people.
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84
Much US "case law," isn't law (in the exact same sense that our current money doesn't have value). It's not founded on any pure principles of ethics or logic, despite the claims of weasly lawyers and congresscritters, but upon convenience and authority through force. It's a history of progressive ursurpations of powers not granted by the people, and is illegitimate. The king has no clothes.
That some judge states "black is white" doesn't make it so, and simply weakens any legitimacy the law once had.
Re:"Fundamentally different" (Score:5, Insightful)
Private companies answer only to a limited number of customers; government (in theory) answers to all the voting population.
Of course, when oversight (the checks and balances) is removed, government no longer answers to the people, and the potential for harm is exponentially greater, simply because the amount of potential power is greater.
Government CAN be on the side of the angels. But without checks such as anonymity, it can be democracy and freedom's worst enemy.
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trespass and Trespass to Chattel (Score:3, Insightful)
Traditionally, tortious trespass is trespass, regardless of whether or not there is a sign. Now, it's not trespass if you're thrown on to the private property, or if you run there to take cover from an act of god. But if you are wandering around and merely don't know that it's someone else's property, then you are liable. Of course, tort law varies from state to state. But the general upshot is that a "no trespassing" sign doesn't do much.
Secondly, as mentioned previously, some consider that this might fall under "trespass to chattel." I can't remember the case offhand, but there was a case where IBM attempted to sue a disaffected employee who had been e-mailing current employees. They tried to sue for trespass to chattel, arguing that the e-mail was trespassing on their computers, this failed, however, since trespass to chattel generally requires damage to be done. There was no damage done to the computer from the e-mail, only to the workers' productivity. I imagine similar reasoning could be used to negate any such claims then.
To get back to the point, you are suggesting some sort of electronic shrink-wrap license that binds employers to not use information from a social networking site towards hiring practices. I'm not sure if there's some precedent that would endorse this idea, but my own gut feeling is that it would fail. There isn't an adequate public policy reason to disallow companies from using social network information (in fact, there may be incentive for companies TO do such a thing, to reduce their hiring of 'troublesome' workers). Secondly, since people are willingly volunteering this information to the public at large, it would be hard to argue that one special class of people is not allowed to view or use that information. It's kind of backwards compared to most other privacy issues, where people giving information to a specific class of people are trying to PREVENT the general public from viewing/using it.
And ethically, I, speaking personally now, see nothing wrong with denying someone a job based on information that they have willingly submitted to others. If they had broadcast something on tv that made them less 'hire-able,' the law certainly wouldn't protect it. Therefore, if it's your prerogative to post pictures of you drinking yourself into oblivion or complaining about your awkwardness at social functions, I think it's perfectly reasonable for an employer to deny you a position based on that information. Now, of course, if they deny it to you because of your race, creed, etc. then that would be unfair according to our laws. That, however, is already protected regardless of if you post it on the internet or not. So I am not seeing the reasoning behind not holding people accountable for their own actions here.
P.S. This is just my response to the points you have brought up. The main point of contention from Kerr, that of giving up anonymity in favor of having the government 'safeguard' and be 'responsible' for our private data, I find to be completely ridiculous. Our government should not play the part of some wizened patriarch. It is here to enhance our ability to organize (economically and militarily). It should be a moderator, not a bully.
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose it can be debated whether some ephemeral electronic impulses in some distant computer apply to the above. In the days this was written, any government agent who did want these, had to physically come to the subject persons house or office and take such persons or items with him/her.
It seems that in this day, the only way to keep anything truly secret, is to not tell anyone, anywhere, by any means and make sure it isn't recorded anywhere it is possible for another person to discover said secret(s). Sending a secret out by any electronic device is likely not much different than shouting it from your roof-top.
Maybe Jesus had this in mind what is recorded in Luke 12:3?
"For there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, nor anything hidden that shall not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light. And that which you have spoken in the ear in secret rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops."
This was written long before mankind had our modern means of eavesdropping.
Re:The Right to Armed Bears (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He does have a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Having Google show you all kinds of things that link back to your identity is a very good thing. After I saw how accurately Google showed how many, and there were many, places my private information was bouncing around the net I was able to quickly pull the plug on every business and social site that was leaking my info.
Now when I do a search I find nothing about myself even after digging through 20 or 30 pages of Google search results.
Now why can't the US government just do a bunch of Google searches for data? Well that's because it's ilegal for them to compile or release information on US citizens outside the scope of the reason it was collected without your consent or without a court order.
Read the Privacy Act of 1974, it very specifically spells out what they can and can't do. One of those things they can't do is create computer data bases that let's them go on "fishing" trips by doing searches in public and private data bases without a court order. Which is exactly what they want to be able to do.
Re:Firefox add-on (Score:4, Insightful)
If your plugin still works as described, then I'd say it's very imperfect. I don't think the approach is completely wrong though, but it could use improvements.
This reminds me of the old idea of randomly embedding key words like "president", "nuke", etc in mail and usenet posts, to mess with with Echelon/Carnivore. A mail with random key words inserted in places would work for triggering the data gathering, but look obviously unrelated to a human who reads the message, as the extra stuff would be inserted in nonsensical places.
Now if your plugin happens to google for "raping virgins" how will you prove this wasn't a real search you tried to hide among a heap of a lot of grammatically incorrect ones? Searches that make grammatical sense will be a minority, and with a list like that there's a high chance that they won't be things normal people google about.
Then there's that it doesn't seem it actually follows any links from the searches, so if the ISP is doing logging it's easy enough to tell what is being actually used.
This seems to me like going to a library, and borrowing 20 books at once, including the Anarchist Cookbook and Mein Kampf, to try hide your actual and much more harmless interest in reading a book on say, Neopaganism. If your history is checked, all that extra stuff you didn't read isn't going to help you any, because there's no way to tell that most of your history was intended to be padding and you haven't even opened it.
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he were elected, I'm not sure how much of his own agenda he'd be able to accomplish since he can only propose new legislation & veto things he disagrees with, but he could make it VERY difficult for Congress to pass things that there wasn't unanimous agreement about, and he wouldn't be giving the protection of the President's Office to those agents of the executive branch who are blatantly violating the Constitution.
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ninth Amendment is critical to modern 'privacy' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here's an example of Kerr's logic (Score:4, Insightful)
The government on the other hand can do far worse to me. The government can realize that I am a fan of a radical centrist group and start keeping tabs on my every move. While they can't prove that I have done anything wrong in terms of being a radical terrorist, they can easily keep track of the laws I break and hit me all at once for them. As they track my GPS they can dish out a fine each time I touch above the speed limit, charge me the full $250,000 per son each time I let a friend borrow a CD, castrate me for drinking on the sabbath, toss me in jail for illegal drug possession when I pop one of my girlfriends anti-allergy pills, and in general make my life a miserable hell.
Re:Sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you can't get total privacy, get what you can, and don't give up easily. Those who are trying to replace privacy with trusting large organizations are doing so because large organizations can be threatened by larger or more powerful (or even just more committed) organizations.
P.S.: Remember that "Do Not Call" list? That one shares your phone number with all telemarketers, so they'll know who not to call. It expires next year, and they've got your number.
Re:Knock knock.. it's 1984 calling. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
This guy really should be fired. Out of a cannon. At a wall.
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:3, Insightful)
3 years ago 70% of the stuff on the first search page were me, not a single result is today.
I quit posting with any reference to my real name/email. And thanks to recent use in a movie, my pseudonymn is no-longer unique also.
Although you can't delete your online history, it will get diluted quickly.
Re:I, for one... (Score:4, Insightful)
The basic organization of the US is to recognize that people disagree- and yet we can work together. When you force every single damn issue to the national level, then you leave people no chance to move away from areas they disagree with and they start getting pretty pissy and intolerant.
Re:A couple of reminders from an American Shithead (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Irrelevant. He was elected, however barely.
2. The minor protests were retarded, and the larger protests are late to the party - not to mention, about the wrong problem. They're certainly no credit to America.
3. You're kidding, right? If you didn't get the idea that Bush was going to send the US down the shitter before 2004, you weren't paying attention.
4. Irrelevant. Pointing out someone else's problems is no way to advance the discussion.
5. Treating the majority of Americans as responsible for Bush's election, and therefore responsible for his crap, is the one thing you can do. Not only did people vote for him in 2000 (which was retarded, but forgivable), but more people voted for him in 2004! At that point, they're responsible for his decisions, and the decisions his administration makes.
So in short: if you voted for Bush twice, I'm holding you personally responsible for the way he is acting. Your parent poster might have said it differently, but it's not far off.
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am afraid he would since many of his "morality" proposals require wide-spread governmental powers. Same for his militaristic (which he denies while actively foting for them) and many other aspirations. He simply wants the big governmental powers in places different from where they are now. This is in actuality the same problem most of the "small government" conservatives have, they all come with pet wacko social dogmas, enforcement of which is completely at odds with their espoused views on the mechanics of governance.
Only if it came to abortion ... or sex between people he does not approve of ... or racial segregation ... or religious persecution ... or corporate excesses such as trusts and monopolies ... or basic social safety nets ... etc and so on
See above. His practical, deeply cherished by him beliefs are at odds with his overall proclamations.
Err, it is not a good thing. Let me repost this [blogspot.com] link from another poster's post. Go see yourself.
Unfortunately Ron Paul is no panacea for this.
And is a faux-Libertarian, nationalistic religious racist zealot any better? This straregy of trying to elect a patently disturbed individual so to "upset" the staus quo of corrupt fat fascists does not strike me as a particularly wise one. There are some wee unintended consequences possible that I can see, even if you don't.
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. I'm speechless.
Re:Finding yourself in Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they in government to make policy that benefits the people, or the businesses? Look to where they go after stepping through the revolving door the second time to answer that question.
I believe that's what drives government to make statements and decisions that impact citizen privacy. Kerr, however, is a career spook. Spookland's interest in thwarting privacy is ostensibly about [preventing] terrorism, but when you consider the massive agglomerated databases of personal and financial history that government is buying/renting from private business, their objectives are not so clear. Let's see where Kerr ends up when his government tenure is over.
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
A big problem with that point of view is that it makes the government a puppet for whoever screams most loudly, at the expense of everybody else. And since the loudest voice is constantly changing, we end up with the worst of all worlds, more tangled laws and regulations than a reasonable person will ever read, and a rapidly growing government.
"Ron Paul's Congressional whack-nuttery" is the first real chance to break away from that in a very long time, and his claims are only further backed up by your link. I could run through that list of proposed bills one by one, if you like, but this really isn't the forum for that.
If you have another reason for believing that the misrepresentations on the page linked are evidence of a real problem with Ron Paul's record, I'd love to hear them.
Ron Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
If he were elected, I'm not sure how much of his own agenda he'd be able to accomplish since he can only propose new legislation & veto things he disagrees with, but he could make it VERY difficult for Congress to pass things that there wasn't unanimous agreement about, and he wouldn't be giving the protection of the President's Office to those agents of the executive branch who are blatantly violating the Constitution.
The veto is anyone who wants to be president most powerful weapon. I'd love to see a president that would veto most of the bills passed by congress. In 2004 that's what Michael Badnarik [badnarik.org] promised. Congress can override vetoes but it isn't homogeneous enough to do it now. That would be a good sight to see, the federal government screeching to a halt.
FalconRe:I, for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
nd as for the bit about having my own "like minded state", that's the last thing I want. Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments. Diversity encourages constant change, and it is without a doubt a huge advantage that western nations have over more isolationist countries. It's also perhaps the best reason I can think of for NOT allowing states to become miniature nations - such a system would encourage further isolation and alienation amongst political, ural, and even religious lines. You think Texans New Yorkers now, just wait until they've been practically autonomous for a few decades. Do you really want to Balcanize the US?
That's the thing about states being able to set their own laws. Instead of one national lab, there can be 50 different labs. What then works in one state can be copied in other states and visa versa, what doesn't work in one state other states don't have to waste money trying out the same thing. In the end what works would spread faster and what fails will be gotten rid of.
FalconRe:Awesome (Score:3, Insightful)
This is basically what this guy is saying. We will monitor everything and know everything about you just not come to your house and arrest you because of it. Trust us because we are nice.
Well in my opinion the United States made it a very long time as a country without any intelligence, we could do just fine without them again if we have to.
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because some fringe radicals support a particular candidate doesn't mean that candidate is "wrong" or somehow less deserving of support.
"[abortion] is not a decision to be made by individual states. It's a human rights issue . .
I believe that a woman should be free to make that decision, but abortion is not a "right" in the same sense as the "Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution, and it should most definitely be left up to the states. Your "legal child abuse" scenario is a silly straw-man argument.
"Diversity breeds challenge and adversity. They in turn make life interesting and lead to new discoveries and developments."
I don't see how restoring states' rights would impede discovery and development. If anything, you'd end up with MORE diversity. The fact that you point out a glaring difference between Texans and New Yorkers is even more evidence to show that a one size fits all Federal Government is inherently unworkable.
Re:I, for one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Insightful)
You always have freedom to leave. You can *walk* across the country in 150 days. You can hop a bus for under $150 to cut most of that time off.
However, if the laws are the same everywhere, then freedom to move doesn't make much of a difference.
Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's get a few things straight:
1) Refusing to finance a given decision does NOT mean you are against having choice in the matter
2) Shifting power from the Federal government to the state governments does NOT equal fascism
3) Refusing to subsidize something does NOT equate to being against it
4) Being thrifty when it's not your money does NOT equate to being a religious whackjob
5) The US Consitution still defines the role of the Federal government. Since the Federal government has proven many times over that it only does well the jobs laid out for it by the US Constitution, it makes sense that we restrict its roles thereto.
Ron Paul isn't a nut - he's just thinking far beyond the average member of the body politic.