tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25444336.post8830352698190730527..comments2023-11-30T05:21:22.162-05:00Comments on A Good Choice . . .: Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act of 1964Samhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06170045314784937027noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25444336.post-38424082315067942722010-05-30T15:51:57.584-04:002010-05-30T15:51:57.584-04:00I am not saying that local governments are not sus...I am not saying that local governments are not susceptible to corruption. But the higher the level of government, the more people that level of government has power over. Lord Acton's statement rings true:<br /><br />Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.<br /><br />This was the genius of the Federalist system and the Ten Amendment. The lower levels of government would actually have more power and a stable system of checks and balances was achieved. But the mistreatment of blacks ruined the whole thing. At that point in history, you either had to allow blacks to be mistreated or you had to take away the freedom of the South to make their own laws. Either way you don't really have freedom. This why the Founding Fathers taught that it could only work if the People were religious and virtuous.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06350789459459006763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25444336.post-62680523730862294032010-05-29T22:43:04.649-04:002010-05-29T22:43:04.649-04:00So, Matt, federal government workers are "Was...So, Matt, federal government workers are "Washington bureaucrats" but local governments employ no "bureaucrats"? Why is it only Washington has "bureaucrats"?<br /><br />If "bureaucrat" is a term that ONLY and ALWAYS applies to all federal workers, then why do we need it? Why not simply say "government workers"? Isn't it meaningless, except as rhetoric? Does your argument here rest on such rhetorical tricks?kwickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08154087476080027111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25444336.post-91098613198862174082010-05-28T22:08:47.919-04:002010-05-28T22:08:47.919-04:00Yes, you would as long as you are not physically d...Yes, you would as long as you are not physically damaging my property or violating any previous voluntary agreements. Legal contracts can protect people from these things. These issues should be handled by local governments, not Washington bureaucrats.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06350789459459006763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25444336.post-6795182052559404442010-05-28T18:46:28.734-04:002010-05-28T18:46:28.734-04:00So you are saying that If I bought a piece of prop...So you are saying that If I bought a piece of property right next to your house and decided to build a rock crushing plant or a meat rendering plant, I would be within my rights even though a rock crushing plant could devalue your property in the eyes of potential buyers.Hamsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10045933530624125001noreply@blogger.com