We got along fine without those for years. We rose to be world powers in Agriculture, Commerce and Labor without those departments, we had superlative education and health without those departments, and the DHS was not founded until almost 140 years since the end of the last serious threat to homeland security. We also changed the name of the Department of War to the department of Defense, and have never once fought a defensive war or a war to defend the USA since making that change. The cabinet is overrated.

But if the states were to impose policies in the direction favored by an extremist magazine like Mother Jones, this point would be called "Enable Choice."

It's the principle of the thing. The government has no right to demand access to privacy without a warrant, nor to require the people to be its unpaid informants.

And...? So Bin Laden's dead. Does that mean the violence will stop? Was he actually doing anything harmful anymore? He got off a lucky shot that will never happen again, and was killed almost ten years later without doing anymore harm. Even stipulating that the way we did it was the best and fastest way of killing him, why is it so important that he be killed RIGHT NOW, considering how ineffective he has been for the better part of a decade? And how many nascent Bin Ladens have been inspired by a team of elite commandos invading a sovereign country to gun down an old man in his house? How many votes will the anti-American hardliners get as a result of our highhanded actions? Many who would have accepted Pakistan turning him over to the US will be incensed and reasonably so, at a foreign military force invading and killing people living in their country.

How is he wrong.

There is no reason it should be a federal crime. It is not remotely within the powers and responsibilities enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution.

This has nothing to do with pharmacology and everything to do with legality. In order to criminalize alcohol, a Constitutional amendment was required. Why are drugs allowed to be criminalized without similar respect to the law of the land? What is more they set a precedent that could be used to retard access to more necessary drugs. In a free country, use of such substances should be at the user's discretion and outlawed, if ever, only by the community. A county make outlaw the sale or public consumption of liquor but not the federal government. There is no reason why this system could not be applied to cocaine or heroin.

Ridiculing this position demonstrates ignorance of the very concept of monopolies. A monopoly is an official government right to exclusively engage in a particular business or field or the sale or production of a particular commodity. The free-market monopoly is a myth, and getting the government out of business would remove the competitive advantages that big business and their lobbyists and bought legislators have written into law. Anti-trust laws in practice tend to hurt the consumers or customers of the biggest businesses and the smaller businesses, more than they restrict the most powerful corporations anyway.

Again, what is wrong with this practice?

They are.

It was.


It was. And she probably didn't appreciate it anyway, since a 300000 dollar object is not in keeping with a vow of poverty. Opposition to empty useless gestures such as this are perfectly consistent with Ron Paul's stated philosophy.