Karma
Heart Attack
On the way in to work, I listened to a radio program where the host was talking to a libertarian & a tea party person. both of these political p.o.v are right wing oriented.
as the two individuals answered various questions, something puzzled me.
how is it that these two right wing political groups BOTH claim they're all about "small gov't", w/ the libertarian's having the most extreme view of the two on that, yet BOTH of them (according to the individuals who were on the program) want the gov't to do things like ban abortion, ban same sex marraige, abolish civil rights & protections (14th ammendment, hate crimes legislation etc).
how do you want "small govt" & yet you want the govt to tell ppl how they can live, who they can marry, what to do w/ their bodies & make them more marginalized by taking away their civil rights/legal protection?
if the fed govt had NOT intervened, civil rights most likely would not have gained traction b/c states (under the concept of state's rights) refused to comply w/ brown vs board of education; refused to abide federal law banning segregation etc.
I'd really like to delve into this b/c this whole "small govt" [but still let the gov't dictate ppl's personal lives] makes no sense to me & do we honestly believe that if "state's rights" prevailed that civil rights, women's rights, hate crimes protection & other federal mandates would even be in place nationwide? personally i don't think so & that's based on what i've read on these things.
as the two individuals answered various questions, something puzzled me.
how is it that these two right wing political groups BOTH claim they're all about "small gov't", w/ the libertarian's having the most extreme view of the two on that, yet BOTH of them (according to the individuals who were on the program) want the gov't to do things like ban abortion, ban same sex marraige, abolish civil rights & protections (14th ammendment, hate crimes legislation etc).
how do you want "small govt" & yet you want the govt to tell ppl how they can live, who they can marry, what to do w/ their bodies & make them more marginalized by taking away their civil rights/legal protection?
if the fed govt had NOT intervened, civil rights most likely would not have gained traction b/c states (under the concept of state's rights) refused to comply w/ brown vs board of education; refused to abide federal law banning segregation etc.
I'd really like to delve into this b/c this whole "small govt" [but still let the gov't dictate ppl's personal lives] makes no sense to me & do we honestly believe that if "state's rights" prevailed that civil rights, women's rights, hate crimes protection & other federal mandates would even be in place nationwide? personally i don't think so & that's based on what i've read on these things.
