Comments by "romanmir01" (@romanmir01) on "Rand Paul's Gay Marriage Joke" video.

  1. Again, your logic is amazing, it's so absent. There are no group rights. If a person's right is violated because he belongs to a group, it simply means that the government has too much power that it can violate private individual rights, nothing else. There are no group rights, there are no 'gay rights', there are no 'womens rights', etc. There are only individual rights and if gov't violates rights of some individuals, that's the problem.
    1
  2. 1. Libertarian ideas are not used anywhere, how can you claim that they are a disaster when there are no libertarian ideas implemented anywhere? This is ridiculous. 2. Eurozone is a disaster of its own - the sovereignty of nations is pushed aside, people's votes mean NOTHING. Global central government telling you what's what? So you believe in 'good' technocrats and not in your sovereignty as an individual? That's slave mentality in progress.
    1
  3. It's not "states rights", it's INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. This is a ruse that libertarians want 'states rights'. Libertarians want individual rights, and the further away the decisions are made from any type of central government, the closer home, closer to the individual that the decisions are made. Ideally nobody can steal rights from individuals, no federal gov't, no state, no municipal gov't. As to any type of union - why should it exist?
    1
  4. yes, Ron Paul doesn't care about 'gay rights', because that's not a right of an individual, it's a bunch of nonsense. Only individual rights are real, there is no such thing as 'gay rights', because it implies that people must be given rights in groups, but when implemented, what it really practically means is not that the government steps AWAY from the people and stops harassing them because they were in a group, the opposite happens. Other individuals are harassed.
    1
  5. Gays are individuals and they get their rights as INDIVIDUALS, not as a "group of gays". How do you dress yourself in the morning with logic as fine as yours, by the way?
    1
  6. There are no "gay rights". Individual rights are the only rights, "gay rights", any other "group rights" have nothing to do with rights. These are obligations on some and privileges to others. What does it mean: "gay rights"? 1. The gov't shouldn't be in business telling anybody what MARRIAGE is, immediately the question of "gay rights" is completely irrelevant 2. The gov't shouldn't be discriminating against people based on their group, immediately this has nothing to do with private sector
    1
  7. Also what it says about YOU, is that you have no brain to speak of, if you believe that there are such things as "straights rights" and that it is up to government to define any of the groups and separate their 'rights', it makes absolutely no sense. You should be on Ron Paul's side precisely because he is against government interfering with INDIVIDUAL rights, the only rights that mean anything. There shouldn't be any PRIVILEGES but also any PERSECUTIONS by GOVERNMENT based on your group.
    1
  8. Ron Paul does not care about gay rights anymore than he cares about any other group rights. There are no 'gay rights', there are no 'women rights', none of this nonsense exists. Whatever passes for 'gay rights' or 'civil rights' or whatever else special designation only means: entitlements for some and obligations for others, but it doesn't actually increase real individual rights, it only destroys them. There are only individual rights, no group rights. Groups have no special rights.
    1
  9. Whatever Rand Paul's PERSONAL BELIEF is, his political stance should be made clear for this to matter, doesn't it? I don't know what Rand Paul's political stance on this is, Ron Paul's political stance is libertarian - federal government has no authority to define marriage.
    1
  10. 1. The Civil war was not fought over slavery, that was a side issue, the issue was control of the union. 2. Just to free the slaves in other nations there were no civil wars fought, this was absolutely unnecessary, shows that the Civil war was fought for other reasons. It's much less costly to buy out slaves and free them and then talk about laws, rather than have a prolonged and bloody war. 3. 'Right to discriminate' is a fundamental human right, you discriminate against stuff and ppl daily.
    1
  11. As to what States can or cannot do is secondary. Federal gov't must not be allowed to meddle with individual rights and it has no authority to regulate marriage any more than it has authority to regulate businesses, counterfeit money, tax income, regulate education or anything else that is not explicitly authorised. States do not automatically gain rights over individuals simply because federal gov't isn't stealing those rights from individuals either.
    1