or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position - Page 2

post #41 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

OxyMORON!

OxyCONTIN!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #42 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Evidently, nothing was learned today.

Nope, I've learned to "Just say no" to Dr. No!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #43 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

OxyMORON!

Are you going to add anything useful here or just toss around insults? Clearly you disagree. Fine. But you haven't offered anything to support your "reasoning" or opinions. You just toss out little quips like this one. This doesn't seem to rise to the standard of "Civil, factually informed ... discussion."
post #44 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

Are you going to add anything useful here or just toss around insults? Clearly you disagree. Fine. But you haven't offered anything to support your "reasoning" or opinions. You just toss out little quips like this one. This doesn't seem to rise to the standard of "Civil, factually informed ... discussion."

For obvious reasons my logic and reason aren't in accord with your logic and reason.

But you still haven't cited an example of people acting WITHOUT governance, when you do I'll engage is some form of discussion, TYVM!

Nuff said!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #45 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

Are you going to add anything useful here or just toss around insults? Clearly you disagree. Fine. But you haven't offered anything to support your "reasoning" or opinions. You just toss out little quips like this one. This doesn't seem to rise to the standard of "Civil, factually informed ... discussion."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #46 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

For obvious reasons my logic and reason aren't in accord with your logic and reason.

But you still haven't cited an example of people acting WITHOUT governance, when you do I'll engage is some form of discussion, TYVM!

Nuff said!

Oh, this is precious.

Quote:
9. No policy should ever be tried until it has already been tried.

Example: "Let libertarians point to a successful example of their policies being implemented before we consider implementing them." Be sure to use this argument like a taxicab, however, as it implies that no government program should ever have been implemented in the first place.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #47 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

For obvious reasons my logic and reason aren't in accord with your logic and reason.

But you still haven't cited an example of people acting WITHOUT governance, when you do I'll engage is some form of discussion, TYVM!

Nuff said!

But this is fallacious. You are trying to argue that because none (currently) exist that it isn't possible. This would be akin to someone dismissing the Wright Brothers by asking whether any man has ever flown before.

You've said: "Let's see now, how about chaos, anarchy, and lack of governance to start with? " but haven't provided any reasoning to support exactly why this would be the case without the state. It is important to recognize the fact that no one is saying no to governance at all, but rather to the "state" which is simply the organized mechanism for the use of force, violence and coercion. Governance can exist without the state and there are many examples today of voluntary, cooperative governance arrangements (private organizations, home owner's associations, churches, companies, etc.)
post #48 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Oh, this is precious.

Don't have the SLIGHTEST clue as to what you are getting at?

Like I said, just one case example of a large territorial body of peoples living TOTALLY ungoverned would suffice, to void this truism.

Please do, before we proceed further!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #49 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Don't have the SLIGHTEST clue as to what you are getting at?

Like I said, just one case example of a large territorial body of peoples living TOTALLY ungoverned would suffice, to void this truism.

Please do, before we proceed further!

We already know what doesn't work, which is where we are now... on the other hand...


Key Concepts of Libertarianism
by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer, from which this is excerpted.

The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.

Individualism. Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people -- to women, to people of different religions and different races -- is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.

Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.

Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It's easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society -- language, law, money, and markets -- all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society -- the complex network of associations and connections among people -- is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Limited Government. To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government, generally through a written constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism, and libertarians point to the historical fact that it was the dispersion of power in Europe -- more than other parts of the world -- that led to individual liberty and sustained economic growth.

Free Markets. To survive and to flourish, individuals need to engage in economic activity. The right to property entails the right to exchange property by mutual agreement. Free markets are the economic system of free individuals, and they are necessary to create wealth. Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people's economic choices is minimized.

The Virtue of Production. Much of the impetus for libertarianism in the seventeenth century was a reaction against monarchs and aristocrats who lived off the productive labor of other people. Libertarians defended the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. This effort developed into a respect for the dignity of work and production and especially for the growing middle class, who were looked down upon by aristocrats. Libertarians developed a pre-Marxist class analysis that divided society into two basic classes: those who produced wealth and those who took it by force from others. Thomas Paine, for instance, wrote, "There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes." Similarly, Jefferson wrote in 1824, "We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers.

Natural Harmony of Interests. Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person's individual plans -- which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on -- may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.

Peace. Libertarians have always battled the age-old scourge of war. They understood that war brought death and destruction on a grand scale, disrupted family and economic life, and put more power in the hands of the ruling class -- which might explain why the rulers did not always share the popular sentiment for peace. Free men and women, of course, have often had to defend their own societies against foreign threats; but throughout history, war has usually been the common enemy of peaceful, productive people on all sides of the conflict.

... It may be appropriate to acknowledge at this point the reader's likely suspicion that libertarianism seems to be just the standard framework of modern thought -- individualism, private property, capitalism, equality under the law. Indeed, after centuries of intellectual, political, and sometimes violent struggle, these core libertarian principles have become the basic structure of modern political thought and of modern government, at least in the West and increasingly in other parts of the world.

However, three additional points need to be made: first, libertarianism is not just these broad liberal principles. Libertarianism applies these principles fully and consistently, far more so than most modern thinkers and certainly more so than any modern government. Second, while our society remains generally based on equal rights and capitalism, every day new exceptions to those principles are carved out in Washington and in Albany, Sacramento, and Austin (not to mention London, Bonn, Tokyo, and elsewhere). Each new government directive takes a little bit of our freedom, and we should think carefully before giving up any liberty. Third, liberal society is resilient; it can withstand many burdens and continue to flourish; but it is not infinitely resilient. Those who claim to believe in liberal principles but advocate more and more confiscation of the wealth created by productive people, more and more restrictions on voluntary interaction, more and more exceptions to property rights and the rule of law, more and more transfer of power from society to state, are unwittingly engaged in the ultimately deadly undermining of civilization.

From Chapter 1, "The Coming Libertarian Age," Libertarianism: A Primer, by David Boaz (New York: The Free Press, 1998). See also www.libertarianism.org.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #50 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

But this is fallacious. You are trying to argue that because not (currently) exist that it isn't possible. This would be akin to someone dismissing the Wright Brothers by asking whether any man has ever flown before.

You've said: "Let's see now, how about chaos, anarchy, and lack of governance to start with? " but haven't provided any reasoning to support exactly why this would be the case without the state. It is important to recognize the fact that no one is saying no to governance at all, but rather to the "state" which is simply the organized mechanism for the use of force, violence and coercion. Governance can exist without the state and there are many examples today of voluntary, cooperative governance arrangements (private organizations, home owner's associations, churches, companies, etc.)

Please show me when people have NOT been governed.

Perhaps back in the days of CAVEPEOPLES!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #51 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Please show me when people have NOT been governed.

Perhaps back in the days of CAVEPEOPLES!

How are you governed when you engage in barter? How are you governed when you shake someone's hand as part of an agreement? How are you governed when you walk down the street and manage not to shoot anyone who looks at you cross-eyed? That's right... you are self-governed, you are responsible for your actions.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #52 of 149

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #53 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

How are you governed when you engage in barter? How are you governed when you shake someone's hand as part of an agreement? How are you governed when you walk down the street and manage not to shoot anyone who looks at you cross-eyed? That's right... you are self-governed, you are responsible for your actions.

You still haven't produced ONE example of the non-governed.

I shake your hand on the proposition "Let's go kill someone." That's "freedom" I guess, so in the name of "freedom" let's shake hands and "go kill someone."

Oh, that's right, we can't infringe on other's "freedoms."

But who decides what those "freedoms" are?

I get the libertarian stick, may have worked back in low population frontier times.

Please provide a formal mathematical logical proof that it would work in today's large global societies!

PS - Ronnie Paulie chances of being POTUS; p < ZERO!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #54 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You still haven't produced ONE example of the non-governed.

I shake your hand on the proposition "Let's go kill someone." That's "freedom" I guess, so in the name of "freedom" let's shake hands and "go kill someone."

Oh, that's right, we can't infringe on other's "freedoms."

But who decides what those "freedoms" are?

I get the libertarian stick, may have worked back in low population frontier times.

Please provide a formal mathematical logical proof that it would work in today's large global societies!

PS - Ronnie Paulie chances of being POTUS; p < ZERO!

May I remind you that the United States was an experiment when it was founded, and it continues to be an experiment. Just because you see what you see today, does not mean it was always so. Also, see above..

Quote:
Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It's easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society -- language, law, money, and markets -- all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society -- the complex network of associations and connections among people -- is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #55 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

May I remind you that the United States was an experiment when it was founded, and it continues to be an experiment. Just because you see what you see today, does not mean it was always so. Also, see above..

That most certainly DOES NOT look like a formal mathematical logical proof!

Nuff said.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #56 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

I haven't the slightest problem with the dreaded phrase... redistribution of income. (bum buh BAH!) Nothing draconian, but a well-enforced progressive taxation system is something we need.

Yes. We need to punish achievers so that they learn their lesson! How DARE YOU achieve more financially than your neighbor! We will take from you so that you will no longer have the motivation to work!

Most of us will fight you to the death over taking what we earn to give to those that don't earn. You are advocating tyranny by taxation. But, hey, you don't have the slightest problem with that.

Shetline, I want you to take YOUR OWN money and do with it exactly what you want to FORCE the rest of us to do, surrender everything you do not absolutely need to survive to the government. Until then, don't go looking to take from others to finance your socialist utopia. Talk to us again after you have disposed of all the money you "don't really need."

Communism DOES NOT WORK in practice. Those that do hold on to their Communist dictatorships only do so at the point of a gun.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #57 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That's "freedom" I guess, so in the name of "freedom" let's shake hands and "go kill someone."

No surprise here. You are so detached from the concept of "freedom" that you'd make some asinine statement like this. Nice perversion of the issue via pathetic hyperbole.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #58 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

No surprise here. You are so detached from the concept of "freedom" that you'd make some asinine statement like this. Nice perversion of the issue via pathetic hyperbole.

Your view of "freedom" will never be my view of freedom, TYVM!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #59 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Oh, that's right, we can't infringe on other's "freedoms."

That's right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

But who decides what those "freedoms" are?

Who do you think decides?

Libertarian thought is based upon the idea of natural rights. Rights that we all have regardless of what the state says. It is these rights that form the foundation (and limitation) of our freedoms. These rights include the right to life (which also implies the rights of self-ownership, self-defense, self-determination, property...the right to own things you produce, exchange...the right ot trade things you produce with others) and liberty. You have these rights but no right to take them from someone else. These "natural" rights might be called "Duh rights" as in "Duh! We all have those!" The state doesn't give them to us. We just have them. They are self-evident. Some might say "God given".

Can you agree on this basic principle that all people have this set of basic, natural rights?
post #60 of 149
It's so funny to me that all of you around here that claim "communist utopia can work" are screaming that liberty in the hands of the person, and the People, will not work... because it's a "utopia"

Having the freedoms of Libertarianism will certainly create much more happiness in people than what we saw in the 20th century under Communism.

Communism=slavery. Slavery over all aspects of the individual, for the mythical "common good" which is really the "good of the Central Committee." A total loss of freedom for no reason at all.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #61 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your view of "freedom" will never be my view of freedom, TYVM!

So, please tell me your view of "freedom." I can't wait for this...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #62 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your view of "freedom" will never be my view of freedom, TYVM!

Could you tell us what freedom means and looks like to you? You have argued against the libertarian view of it (not very well I might add). But you have not offered a clear, concise explanation of what freedom means to you. It might help this "discussion" get some real traction. I'd really like to hear what you think freedom and liberty mean. How would you define them?
post #63 of 149
I'll admit it, folks. Libertarianism is not an 'easy' concept to grasp, especially when you consider the level of indoctrination we've been through (assuming most of us went to public school), starting with our daily prayer to the state in the form of the American flag. You all remember that, don't you? And if you still get fuzzy feelings from memories of Mommy and Daddy taking care of everything for you and spoon feeding you, you may not immediately warm up to the ideas of being responsible for yourself. It's a life changing view of the world.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #64 of 149
Big government types work on a daily basis to kill freedom. It's that simple. They hate it. A bigger and more powerful central government inherently reduces the freedom of citizens. As the government does more and more on our backs, we are left with less and less to invest, donate, educate, and the rest. We send our taxes to the government, and then beg them to take care of us. How absolutely pathetic.

We cannot afford ourselves... Sorry, folks.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #65 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

That's right.



Who do you think decides?

Libertarian thought is based upon the idea of natural rights. Rights that we all have regardless of what the state says. It is these rights that form the foundation (and limitation) of our freedoms. These rights include the right to life (which also implies the rights of self-ownership, self-defense, self-determination, property...the right to own things you produce, exchange...the right ot trade things you produce with others) and liberty. You have these rights but no right to take them from someone else. These "natural" rights might be called "Duh rights" as in "Duh! We all have those!" The state doesn't give them to us. We just have them. They are self-evident. Some might say "God given".

Can you agree on this basic principle that all people have this set of basic, natural rights?

That is the most ambiguous question that I believe that I've ever been asked.

What EXACTLY are those "natural rights?" You mean the ones codified by a arbitrary group of people into our US Constitution? An arbitrary set of freedoms dictated by our fearless leaders, that no other country holds to in the EXACT same fashion?

Actually, I believe in natural wrongs!

Those are a set of things that we as people should never do!

My constraint based logic is fundamentally different than your unconstrained based logic.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #66 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Actually, I believe in natural wrongs!

Ooooooo Ooooooo a clever play on words. This is progress...

Quote:
Those are a set of things that we as people should never do!

Liiiiiiiiiike.....?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #67 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Big government types work on a daily basis to kill freedom. It's that simple. They hate it. A bigger and more powerful central government inherently reduces the freedom of citizens. As the government does more and more on our backs, we are left with less and less to invest, donate, educate, and the rest. We send our taxes to the government, and then beg them to take care of us. How absolutely pathetic.

We cannot afford ourselves... Sorry, folks.

It's true that in anarchy our freedoms are maximized, but what type of life is there?

See it isn't an issue of the number of freedoms, but the quality at which we exercise them.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #68 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That is the most ambiguous question that I believe that I've ever been asked.

What EXACTLY are those "natural rights?" You mean the ones codified by a arbitrary group of people into our US Constitution? An arbitrary set of freedoms dictated by our fearless leaders, that no other country holds to in the EXACT same fashion?

Actually, I believe in natural wrongs!

Those are a set of things that we as people should never do!

My constraint based logic is fundamentally different than your unconstrained based logic.

Libertarianism seems at odds with the conformist drivel you've been taught since you were born, doesn't it?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #69 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

You want. Fine. What gives you the right though to tell someone what they can make or sell?

What gives anyone the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do? Since I don't feel like writing 20 pages or so explicating a theory of government, I'll just say two words to give you a rough idea of where I'm coming from: John Rawls.

Google it.

Quote:
What about redistribution of income to corporations? Because this happens too with the power of government to tax people and give it to others. Some of those others are corporations. Is that kind of redistribution fine with you?

If what the government is doing is building roads (I'll have to assume for now that you aren't so extreme a Libertarian that you'd prefer every single road to be a privately-owned toll road), and some of those corporations happen to do road construction, or supply materials and machinery needed for road construction -- I've got no problem at all with that, so long as the government does a good job for us in bargaining for a good price and demanding good service.

Will there always be some graft and corruption in this sort of process? Yes. But with proper public vigilance this can be kept to a tolerable minimum -- much more tolerable than not having the government involved in building and maintaining roads at all.

Quote:
Why do we "need" such a thing? Do you have any good reasoning? Facts? Or are you just telling us what you think, feel and believe and trying to pass it off as an unassailable "fact"?

Yeah, I'm sure you always preface every single thing you say about politics with multi-paged, fully cited and referenced theses.

If you've think something I've said needs more explanation or substantiation, ask specific questions. Don't be a dick about the ordinary flow of a normal conversation instead.

Consider that one of the primary premises of the American Constitution is limitation of power, and checks and balances between powers. Consider further then that money is power, a power which doesn't always restrict itself to the private sphere. Dig into that thought a little, and you see one basis for progressive taxation.

Also consider the public and social contributions which support private wealth. Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". The same can be said of generating vast profit. While on one hand we don't want government to squelch the important incentive which arises from dreaming of wealth, one doesn't have to be completely blind to the fact that a reasonable argument can be made for a social and public claim on the wealth of individuals, who do not rise to great wealth without large public contributions (contributions far from fully accounted for in the transactions of the free market) to assist individual talent, industry and, quite often, plain dumb luck.

Quote:
There need not be any "forced cooperation" through the mechanism of state.

I mentioned before the "tragedy of the commons". Google is your friend.

Besides, isn't any form of government at all a form of forced cooperation? Don't make the mistake of acting like you reject completely in kind what you can only object to at best in degree -- unless you're an anarchist, and not a libertarian.

Quote:
Is this another case where you are trying to pass off your feeling and belief as an unassailable "fact"? Can you support this statement with any facts?

Again: tragedy of the commons. If you're going to act like you've got some hot shit theory of government that it's my job to disprove (or else it must be true!), you'll have to forgive me if I've made the apparently unwarranted assumption that I can refer to common ideas regarding the theory of government and the social contract as if you might already have a clue what I'm talking about, or at least enough interest to look a few things up yourself.

Quote:
Once again you've made a statement without anything to support it. Please try to. Otherwise we'll just have to accept these as your opinions and nothing more.

How about we see a little more substantiation from you as well? I'd be particularly interested in stellar historical examples of the great unalloyed success of libertarian government.

Quote:
The reason the state is required is when some people cannot get what they want by voluntary and cooperative means and the only resort is to take it from others by force. If you do this through the mechanism of state, then it takes on the appearance of respectability. But it is theft no matter how you dress it up.

Again, you're making the mistake of acting like you reject completely in kind what you can only object to at best in degree. If you support ANY form of government at all, you're supporting "theft", going by the so-called reasoning you invoke above.

What's your slogan going to be? Vote for Ron Paul -- he'll rob you as little as possible?

If you accept that some taxation, any taxation at all, is required, as well as other state-imposed duties, responsibilities, and obligations upon the citizenry, then it is ludicrous to act as if there's some magic line where such state impositions automatically become "theft".
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #70 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Libertarianism seems at odds with the conformist drivel you've been taught since you were born, doesn't it?

No, I find libertarianism to be grossly archaic in nature, something that worked well in sparse, largely independent populations of a few hundred years ago.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #71 of 149
Incidentally, I found an absolutely fantastic link to Q&A sessions with all of the candidates.

http://www.wmur.com/conversations-wi...tes/index.html

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #72 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No, I find libertarianism to be grossly archaic in nature, something that worked well in sparse, largely independent populations of a few hundred years ago.

What is it exactly that you find so appealing about today's Democrat or Republican parties? You do realize that both parties are utterly ineffectual and contribute to increased government that benefits no one?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #73 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What is it exactly that you find so appealing about today's Democrat or Republican parties? You do realize that both parties are utterly ineffectual and contribute to increased government that benefits no one?

I don't have much faith in today's political system. I'd like to get rid of all the special interest groups/lobbiests. But most importantly I'd like to see reduced government spending.

Someone like Ron Paul would have to have a Congress that would work with him, and for some reason, I don't see that happening.

I've also become cynical between what the campaigns promise going through the election process versus what the winner actually delivers on once elected.

They really need to trim entitlements and defense budgets significantly.

I would seriously consider the budget proposal of he candidate that best supports long term fiscal solvency (reduces the deficit the most)

And no, I don't think Dr. No would be as much of a No man if he were elected POTUS, but he would appear to have the best chance to reduce federal spending with a willing Congress.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #74 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

No, I find libertarianism to be grossly archaic in nature, something that worked well in sparse, largely independent populations of a few hundred years ago.

I was going to respond, but there it is.

I just don't understand libertarians. I really don't get you people. Don't misunderstand; I understand libertarianism. I just don't see why anyone looks at it and gets a stiffie for it. And then to believe that it is a philosophy of individual freedom is to ignore the entire history of the economic wing of the philosophy. To believe in it as a moral philosophy is, well, archaic and bizarre and seems to ignore the many things Mill simply didn't get.

Can I employ 5-year-olds in my factory in potentially dangerous positions (e.g. pulling broken pieces of machinery out of a large lathe, say?)

If I own a factory, do I *have* to have a clock in it? It's a pain in the ass when the workers know how long they've been there. Can I fire anyone who wears a watch? Anyone who is literate? Believe me, this literacy issue was HUGE in the 18th century in England, when literacy rates shot up. Factory owners were deeply concerned about what would happen if their workers became literate.

Can I hire 8-year-olds to work a 14 hour shifts?

Can I hire small girls (say, 6 years old) as chimney sweeps?

Can I have sex with an 11-year-old so long as she's working as a prostitute?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #75 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

What gives anyone the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do? Since I don't feel like writing 20 pages or so explicating a theory of government, I'll just say two words to give you a rough idea of where I'm coming from: John Rawls.

Google it.

I'm not doing you work for you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

If what the government is doing is building roads

That's not even what I was talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Don't be a dick

Now you are just being rude.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Consider further then that money is power, a power which doesn't always restrict itself to the private sphere. Dig into that thought a little

Well, let's go with your presupposition (and it is a presupposition, possibly an invalid one) that "money is power". What happens when the state has tons of it? Does it then have tons of power? Should it? What will it do with it (I think we already see)?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Besides, isn't any form of government at all a form of forced cooperation?

No.
post #76 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

I'm not doing you work for you.

Nor even much for yourself, apparently.

Shall we contrast the effort I've made to back up my opinions in these matters with your efforts to do the same?

Quote:
That's not even what I was talking about.

That doesn't mean that bringing up an example where the government giving money to a corporation can make sense isn't appropriate in this context.

Quote:
Now you are just being rude.

Perhaps, but what I said had the benefit of being true. You were acting like a dick, and that's rude too, so I'm only returning rudeness in kind. Just because I don't couch every single utterance in disclaimers like "IMHO, I think that maybe..." hardly mean I'm expecting everything I say to be taken as unassailable fact.

I've spoken just the way anyone would (including yourself) in such a conversation - probably even more carefully than most people. "Calling me" on that, as if you've done any better, is hypocritical and yes, it's acting like a dick.

Quote:
Well, let's go with your presupposition (and it is a presupposition, possibly an invalid one) that "money is power". What happens when the state has tons of it? Does it then have tons of power? Should it? What will it do with it (I think we already see)?

Without a good system of checks and balances it's a bad thing. With a good system of checks and balance, properly enforced, government can be the vehicle for people to use collective power well (including the power of collective wealth) to do great things.

Quote:
No.

Just "no"? And you have the nerve to get on my case for not providing you with tons of annotated research and detailed explication for every utterance?

If a government requires you to pay any taxes at all, how is that NOT forced cooperation? If a government enforces even the most minimal rules, like not allowing you to kill your neighbor any time you feel like it, how is that NOT forced cooperation?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #77 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

What EXACTLY are those "natural rights?"

It will help you (and the conversation as a whole) if you actually read what I have posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Actually, I believe in natural wrongs!

Those are a set of things that we as people should never do!

I understand that you are trying to be clever here. I am willing to go along. What are those "things that we as people should never do" and why?

And while you are at it, you seem to have missed (or ignored) my questions:

Could you tell us what freedom means and looks like to you? You have not offered a clear, concise explanation of what freedom means to you. It might help this "discussion" get some real traction. I'd really like to hear what you think freedom and liberty mean. How would you define them?
post #78 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Nor even much for yourself, apparently.

I have done my homework, study, and investigation. I continue to do so to stretch my mind and to not accept things (such as our current social and governance structures) uncritically as many here seem willing to do with regard to our current state.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Shall we contrast the effort I've made to back up my opinions in these matters with your efforts to do the same?

You posted a bunch of opinions. I asked for some reasoning behind your positions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Perhaps, but what I said had the benefit of being true. You were acting like a dick, and that's rude too, so I'm only returning rudeness in kind. Just because I don't couch every single utterance in disclaimers like "IMHO, I think that maybe..." hardly mean I'm expecting everything I say to be taken as unassailable fact.

I've spoken just the way anyone would (including yourself) in such a conversation - probably even more carefully than most people. "Calling me" on that, as if you've done any better, is hypocritical and yes, it's acting like a dick.

So rather than providing any support for your opinions, you are simply going to call names. So much for a civil discussion.
post #79 of 149
The Libertarian Party symbol:



You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #80 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by drm View Post

I have done my homework, study, and investigation.

Funny. It barely shows.

Quote:
I continue to do so to stretch my mind and to not accept things (such as our current social and governance structures) uncritically as many here seem willing to do with regard to our current state.

And you haven't noticed yet that the closest thing to these libertarian ideals that's ever been tried can be seen in the early "robber baron" days of the early industrial revolution?

I'm far from uncritical of our current state of affairs. That doesn't mean I'm ready to try an even more stupid alternative. Once you're out of the realm of dictatorships and communism, and looking at modern democracies, I see not one hopeful sign in history that as we get closer to a small, libertarian-style government that things get better for the people living under those governments. If fact, things look like they typically get worse for the average citizen. Why should I believe that at some magic level of libertarian purity that's never yet been tried that the trends I've seen would be reversed?

And by the way, I listened to Ron Paul last night on Bill Maher. I actually like what he has to say when it comes to Iraq -- which is about all that was discussed. But that doesn't mean I like the whole package deal of Ron Paul by far.

Quote:
You posted a bunch of opinions. I asked for some reasoning behind your positions.

What you did was hardly "just asking", however. "Do you have any good reasoning? Facts? Or are you just telling us what you think, feel and believe and trying to pass it off as an unassailable 'fact'?" That's not just asking. That's being a dick.

Quote:
So rather than providing any support for your opinions, you are simply going to call names. So much for a civil discussion.

If you look back and re-read carefully, I said a whole lot more apart from accurately accounting how you've been acting like a dick. But it's easier to fixate on bleeting about how you feel insulted than to get on with anything else, isn't it?

Even this post added some detail and support to the points I'm making. But conveniently for you, anything short of a twenty-page essay from me allows you to prattle on about how you're being denied a "civil discussion".

Civility has to go both ways.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position