Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 07:04:30 AM
Seriously, why vote for anybody but Ron Paul? Part of this is copy/paste, part of it I've edited in my own summary.
- Lower taxes AND lower spending. That's key. Ron Paul is a fiscally responsible politician.
- Ron Paul will stand for American sovereignty. Did you know the UN wants to tax American citizens? That's right, you will pay a special tax to give your money to foreign powers like Syria, Israel, France, etc. Ron Paul will also oppose the North American Union, which would place an unelected bureaucracy of special interests in control of our country. The other candidates aren't even talking about this issue.
- Ron Paul favors uniform and fair immigration laws, treating everyone who wants to be an American the same way. This, combined with completely eliminating all amnesty provisions, eliminating welfare to illegal immigrants and physically securing our borders, will make for a humane and meaningful border security policy. This is key to the issue, any effort to secure the border must also include immigration reform. The current "lottery" system is just bizarre.
- Ron Paul thinks the government doesn't have the right to seize your property willy nilly.
The truth about Ron Paul:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act and wants to increase your privacy.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
He is a consistent candidate who has never veered from his beliefs.
Show me another candidate who meets most of those descriptors and I'll add him or her as a new #1 or my #2 pick.
Now is the man perfect? No. Is absolutely everything he proposes going to happen if he gets elected? Again the answer is no. Do we have any guarantees that introducing Dr. Paul to the White House will fix anything? Of course not, but how can he screw it up any worse than King Bush II or Klinton?
He's not a lawyer (no offense attorneys but I do believe the fact that some Congress critters seem to see the legislature as a lawyer's social club does skew their perceptions of day to day life), he's a physician, an OB/GYN to be specific. He has ideas on how to make health care more affordable without socializing it (such as changing the licensing system).
He's an experienced politician who's not a shill for the RINOs or Demonrats. How rare is that?
If you're a staunch Democrat, voting for Ron Paul in the primaries will insure that the election will be about the issues, not the war in Iraq. Otherwise it'll be a No War vs. Pro War argument, and no one will really be talking about the issues.
Same thing if you're a staunch Republican. Win people over to your side by making the war question a moot point, and make the election about the issues, and your side will probably win.
Folks, the Democrats haven't mustered a decent presidential candidate in my lifetime. The RINOs one might argue have done only slightly better. The last president I can remember in my lifetime who might have been something of a real conservative was Reagan, whom I barely even remember in all honesty. And look at what he gave us: the '86 ban (although to be fair you could argue he was tricked into that one but he still signed it), the useless boondoggle called the War on (Some) Drugs, and Iran Contra. And that's not even breaching the things he did as governor of CA. Bloody Thursday anybody? And this man is probably the overall best president I've seen in office since I've been alive. The succeeding ones have just gotten worse and worse (at least Reagan had his good moments too). Don't get me started on the Bush Dynasty or the Klinton era.
And even if you go back before my lifetime, I can see a steady chain of government abuses starting with the Alien and Sedition act. The "progressive" movement of the 1930s and FDR's subsequent attempt to become the dictator of a socialist empire is probably where it reached a new plateau of government gone wild. The only difference I see is that most 20th century Republicans historically make some sort of token effort to slow down the inevitable abuse and out of control government, and those efforts are getting to the point of being minuscule or nonexistent. Democrats actively aggravate the situation.
We can't keep doing this. We keep electing the same garbage over and over again, and the government is spiraling out of control. Garbage in, garbage out. It's time to try something different. The government takes 1/3 of our paychecks or more and we don't even question it.
Now we have to contend with the reality that in the immediate future, the only people who have a shot at the big office are those who run as a donkey or an elephant; these parties have even gone so far as to vote in policies in some districts that keep candidates from other parties from appearing on the same ballot they have so much money and power. We need somebody who is in the position to get the backing of one of those parties yet at the same time will at least partially subvert the incompetence that party currently stands for. It doesn't really matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican dark horse, it just matters that it's one or the other. Ron Paul may not be the completely perfect candidate in your view, but he is in a unique situation to swing American politics back to a more reasonable spectrum and I quite frankly am not going to take for granted this situation will ever arise again.
Read all about it before you attack the man's platform. No other candidate has organized his views for us so well or in such detail, and when you put it all together it sounds reasonable enough to me.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
It's very plausible in my mind that if Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, odds are he'll might not be able to get in the position to run again, it doesn't matter who does because that candidate will go against the anti war Democrats, who will win the election based on that alone, and lo and behold it'll be eight years of Klinton II (effectively, even if She Who Must Not Be Named isn't on the actual ticket).
Do I sound like a fanatic or a Moonie to you? I mean honestly, what is so crazy about the idea of supporting a political candidate with a reasonable platform?
Anyway that's my peace. I beg you to at bare minimum vote for anybody but She Who Must Not Be Named.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 14, 2007, 07:14:13 AM
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 07:19:59 AM
Because as the previous debates have shown, it'd be very easy for Hillary to bait him into a desperate-sounding rant of a response while she just smirked, the audience laughed at Paul, and he'd lose. And she'd be president.
And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.
Furthermore, a candidate who does nothing but regurgitate Hilldog's stance only a few more degrees right of it is not a solution.
Post by: Antibubba on September 14, 2007, 07:20:36 AM
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 07:23:39 AM
In the Primary, sure. He hasn't a chance in hell, but I want the republicans thinking about him.
See I don't get this mindset either. Sure, if everyone has that attitude, it will be true.
In objective reality, if the candidate is rallied around by enough people, he will win, just like anyone else. It's like some people (not you Antibubba) seem to think that the laws of physical reality or American elections don't apply to Dr. Paul.
Post by: Michigander on September 14, 2007, 07:36:33 AM
I am making an exception for Ron Paul who, IMO, is the only "true Republican" in the party.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 14, 2007, 08:07:37 AM
Quote
Why vote for anybody but Ron Paul?
Because I watched his Iraq war speech and damn near yakked. Republican? No. Libertarian gadfly? Yes.
Ron Paul has never had an Iraqi citizen thank him in person. I have. So he turns me off like a light switch.
Fred Thompson for me.
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 09:07:06 AM
Ron Paul has never had an Iraqi citizen thank him in person. I have. So he turns me off like a light switch.
You mean, one Iraqi thanked you, so the rest can go suck it? Or are you saying that the other 27,499,637 agree with this one that you met?
If China conquered the US tomorrow, at least one American would say, "Thank you!" What exactly would that prove?
--Len.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 14, 2007, 09:14:05 AM
Nor do you know how many Iraqis thanked my fellow troops in-country.
But that's ok. You may proceed with calling them collaborators, if you wish.
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 09:21:38 AM
You don't know how many Iraqis thanked me during my all-expense-paid government vacation, Len.
That's correct: I don't. You said AN Iraqi. I realize that you could mean, "AN Iraqi... as a matter of fact 257 Iraqis."
On the other hand, if I were writing your post, I would probably have strengthened my case by using the biggest number I could, so rather than "an Iraqi," I'd have said, "dozens of Iraqis," or "over 200 Iraqis," or "entire villages," or whatever was applicable. From this I infer that the number of Iraqis, while quite possibly more than one, is in fact not large. I realize that that too may not be correct, but it's an educated guess from your post.
Quote
Truthfully, I ain't gonna tell you now that you showed that side of your character.
It's a trifle ad hominem to leap straight to character like that. However, you are not required to tell me anything.
Quote
But that's ok. You may proceed with calling them collaborators, if you wish.
I don't recall having done any such thing, so what are you talking about? I only pointed out that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The way that I picked for pointing it out was to ask how you get from "an Iraqi citizen," in your own words, to "all twenty-seven million Iraqis." Are you using some standard method of extrapolation? Have you estimated the margin of error using statistical methods? In short, do you have any data, or do you only have some anecdotes?
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 14, 2007, 09:43:14 AM
Post by: auschip on September 14, 2007, 10:02:23 AM
Ron is a good idea man and I don't mind having him as my Congresscritter, but I don't think I want him as my President.
Kinda my feelings on it. I see him as the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party.
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 10:06:07 AM
The issue is that the war was started under illegal and dishonest pretenses, and was a political ploy and not motivated by any desire to fight terrorism or any noble cause at all.
We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay. Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 10:08:00 AM
We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay. Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.
Well put.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 14, 2007, 10:08:05 AM
And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.
Y'mean the polls that the Ron Zombies all pile on and tell each other to pile on and skew?
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 10:13:02 AM
And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.
Y'mean the polls that the Ron Zombies all pile on and tell each other to pile on and skew?
Kind of like how the majority of Texas residents "skewed" the 2000 election by voting for Bush? I'm sorry I thought a poll of whatever kind worked by counting the votes.
Voting in a poll is not "skewing" it when the poll is open to everyone.
That's the other sentiment I don't understand. Since I've looked at the platform and found it to be reasonable and logical, I'm an unthinking fanboy as are all the others who support Dr. Paul, apparently.
Post by: StopTheGrays on September 14, 2007, 10:27:04 AM
And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.
Y'mean the polls that the Ron Zombies all pile on and tell each other to pile on and skew?
Kind of like how the majority of Texas residents "skewed" the 2000 election by voting for Bush? I'm sorry I thought a poll of whatever kind worked by counting the votes.
Voting in a poll is not "skewing" it when the poll is open to everyone.
*Unless you live in Chicago or Milwaukee.
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 10:29:57 AM
Who votes more than once on those things anyway? Don't most of those sites use cookies to keep that from happening?
I understand you can disable and clear the cookies and theoretically stuff the ballot box, so I'll acquiesce the point there's probably people who do exactly that.
However, why would such activity be the exclusive domain of Ron Paul supporters? If anything it's safer to assume that such behavior would be uniform across the spectrum.
Post by: K Frame on September 14, 2007, 10:33:20 AM
They're far too prone to manipulation and not even remotely scientifically constructed.
Anyone who tries to infer a nationwide trend from an internet poll is deluding himself.
Oh, and word of warning.
Keep it civil.
Attacking an individual is not keeping it civil. Attacking the individual's information/contention is a lot farther on the way towards keeping it civil.
Post by: Standing Wolf on September 14, 2007, 10:35:29 AM
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 10:38:07 AM
Furthermore I submit the good Doctor can rally as well as anybody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI
Random speech. While not a masterpiece of oratory, I found it sufficiently motivating.
W got elected and the man is a poor public speaker indeed.
Post by: K Frame on September 14, 2007, 10:39:23 AM
It's certainly not.
If you've been around gun boards long enough you'll see calls to "HIT THIS POLL!"
In fact, a number of news organizations have shut down polls on their websites after such exhortations on THR and TFL led to substantial double voting.
A 3-year-old can clear these days a computer's cookies, so that's certainly not a deterrent.
However, it simply can't be assumed that "it's level across the spectrum." Not all candidates have the same number/level of internet supporters/hawks who mobilize the internet troops.
That's what random polling does -- filters out variables such as that.
If anyone thought for a second that net polling was a valid indicator of a candidate's or an issue's traction among the public, laborious and EXPENSIVE phone polling would have been abandoned years ago.
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 10:44:21 AM
Random speech. While not a masterpiece of oratory, I found it sufficiently motivating.
W got elected and the man is a poor public speaker indeed.
W got elected and the man is a poor public speaker indeed.
I'd say it's a bit silly to assert flatly that he "cannot win." Of course he can. Longer shots have come in before. On the other hand, I agree that it's unlikely he'll win, for a simple reason: pretty much everyone who gets his paycheck from Uncle Sam can be expected to vote against Ron Paul. And that's almost half the country right there.
I humbly submit that anyone who takes in more government money than he pays out in taxes should be prohibited from voting. That would include most defense contractors, almost all government employees, and everyone on the dole. Their bread is buttered on the wrong side.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 10:45:27 AM
"However, why would such activity be the exclusive domain of Ron Paul supporters?"
It's certainly not.
If you've been around gun boards long enough you'll see calls to "HIT THIS POLL!"
In fact, a number of news organizations have shut down polls on their websites after such exhortations on THR and TFL led to substantial double voting.
A 3-year-old can clear these days a computer's cookies, so that's certainly not a deterrent.
However, it simply can't be assumed that "it's level across the spectrum." Not all candidates have the same number/level of internet supporters/hawks who mobilize the internet troops.
That's what random polling does -- filters out variables such as that.
If anyone thought for a second that net polling was a valid indicator of a candidate's or an issue's traction among the public, laborious and EXPENSIVE phone polling would have been abandoned years ago.
It's certainly not.
If you've been around gun boards long enough you'll see calls to "HIT THIS POLL!"
In fact, a number of news organizations have shut down polls on their websites after such exhortations on THR and TFL led to substantial double voting.
A 3-year-old can clear these days a computer's cookies, so that's certainly not a deterrent.
However, it simply can't be assumed that "it's level across the spectrum." Not all candidates have the same number/level of internet supporters/hawks who mobilize the internet troops.
That's what random polling does -- filters out variables such as that.
If anyone thought for a second that net polling was a valid indicator of a candidate's or an issue's traction among the public, laborious and EXPENSIVE phone polling would have been abandoned years ago.
Fair enough.
Reminds me of the Penn and Teller bit on polls anyway... "Why the hell should you care what other people think?"
I just wanted to make the point that it's equally flawed to say what would happen in a theoretical debate and consider that a good argument if the online polling isn't considered a good argument. I don't see either argument as being any stronger than the other.
Post by: roo_ster on September 14, 2007, 10:54:03 AM
You might want to research how online polls can be slammed by one and only one person with the right skill set or mere access to msdos/linux shell scripts.
Ron Paul, though I am sympathetic to him, won those online polls in a manner similar to how JFK won the state of Illinois in 1960. "Fair & square" was not the means.
IOW, online polls are worthless and more easily manipulable than even meat-space polls. They put the "less' in "worthless."
Quote from: Euclidian
The issue is that the war was started under illegal and dishonest pretenses, and was a political ploy and not motivated by any desire to fight terrorism or any noble cause at all.
Opinon not supported by the facts, for the most part. Another part is merely wrong. Wrong: Illegal? Not so much.
Not according to the COTUS or precedent as early as Pres. T Jefferson. We never declared war on the Barbary Pirates, yet TJ sent our boys over there to do their best:
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
Naval and land forces sent to tame unruly, threatening Mohammedians by an American president. TJ, no less.
As much as I would prefer a Declaration of War whenever our boys are deliberately sent out to kill our enemies & break their stuff, I am under no illusion that doing so without a formal declaration is illegal. TJ had Congress bless his excursion to N Africa with something less than a declaration of war in a manner similar to how GWB had Congress bless his excursion to Iraq.
"Illegal" won't fly since at least TJ.
Opinion: Dishonest, Ploy, Not Motivated by Desire to Fight Terrorism? At Worst/Best Unknowable
As a conscious, adult, and connected human being from 11SEP2001 to the start of GW2, I can attest to the many statements by leaders, both foreign & domestic, that believed Saddam had WMD. Their statements decrying Saddam's WMDs and the likely consequences if the US confronted him are found on the net for any to see. This reason, pretense, or whatever, was one of several given by GWB. GWB very well might have been dishonest, but without a Vulcan mind meld, we can not prove that his motivation was other than what his words described. At best, his motivations are unknowable. It is not like he wrote the the Bushie version of Mein Kampf, telling us what he'd do once in power.
The internet is a lovely thing. It captures politicians', LEOs', and other folks' words and archives them for all to research later. That way those who care to do so (and value fact over bullshinola) can look them up to see what Sen Bedfellow said about Issue X, 4 years in the past. It can also be used to dismantle claims of illegality and dishonesty.
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 11:15:27 AM
You might want to research how online polls can be slammed by one and only one person with the right skill set or mere access to msdos/linux shell scripts.
That's probably true of some polls--namely, the ones coded by incompetents. Any web developer worth his salt will log IP addresses and forbid multiple votes from a single IP, or if possible will require a logged-in user with a unique email address in order to vote. Those measures can be circumvented, but not by your average script kiddy.
It's no secret that RP supporters "Freep" political polls. When I see a link to a poll, I often pop over and vote for RP myself, and I'm sure others do too. I don't vote multiple times, but out of curiosity I've cleared cookies and reloaded, and when I've checked, I get the message, "Your IP has already voted" OWTTE.
On the other hand, I'm sure that "Hillraisers" also "Freep" polls for Billary. It's impossible to say whether the result is a wash or not, but you would generally expect the results to be vaguely correlated with the candidate's actual popularity: if Giuliani supporters outnumber RP supporters by 50:1, and a poll is posted to forums where Giuliani's and RP's respective supporters hang out, you'd expect the proportion of folks rushing over to vote would be somewhere in the ballpark of 50:1 in Giuliani's favor. If you firmly believe that some hacker is voting multiple times, then you'd expect pro-Giuliani hackerbots to outnumber pro-RP hackerbots by roughly 50:1, and again you'd expect a relative wash.
Since that's clearly not happening, one might cast about for an explanation. Keeping the made-up ratio of 50:1 for Rudy, and supposing that RP beats Rudy by 3:1 in internet polls, the following are some possible explanations:
1) Perhaps the average RP supporter is 150x more likely to go vote in a poll he sees posted online. (This seems doubtful, though.)
2) Perhaps skilled hackers are 150x more likely to support RP than Rudy. (I can't begin to guess whether that's plausible or not.)
3) Perhaps each RP supporter, on average, votes 150 times in Internet polls for each Rudy supporter's single vote. (They must have lots of time on their hands.)
4) Perhaps voters who support Rudy are 150x less likely to use the Internet in the first place. Maybe they're all teamsters, and after a hard day at the loading dock they're just too worn out to bother going online.
5) Perhaps Rudy supporters aren't even reading political sites. Maybe they're all at MySpace hooking up, while every single RP supporter is busy reading LewRockwell.com and spamming Digg. So maybe the RP supporters are 150x more likely even to know the poll is out there.
6) Perhaps Internet users are much more likely to be libertarian than the average person. This is a variant of #4 above, more or less.
7) Then again, it's possible that the relative support isn't 50:1 after all.
The disparity between online unscientific polls and offline (presumably scientific) polls is too great to be ignored; something is going on there. But I would hesitate to offer glib explanations. I suspect that #5, #6 and #7 all play a part in the true explanation. Proving it would be tough. Translating that into election predictions would be even tougher; we'd have to figure out the relative likelihood of Internet users voting, compared to the general population, just for starters.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on September 14, 2007, 11:32:15 AM
Saddam is gone. Why are we still there? Nation building? While nation building an ally in the region with a secular government first seemed like a good idea to me, it's now apparent that Iraq isn't going to be another Japan. We rebuilt Japan in 6 years and after the first 2 years or so, our troops started to trickle out as the situation improved. We went in, in 2003, do you think Iraq is going to be ready for Coalition forces to pull out in 2 years? We tried, by God we tried as well as anyone can try, we sent the best people in the world in masses and masses and they are still doing everything for those people, but it's obvious to me that Iraq doesn't want prosperity or western civilization. That fight is centuries if not millennia old, we're not going to roll in and solve it any time soon.
As for Bush's motivation, We know the support for the anti US regime is coming from Iran. Why are we still in Iraq? Why aren't we blasting the Saudis and other known terrorists? These actions speak loudly to me. He could at least speak to these issues coherently. Even if his motivation is not foul, he's clearly incompetent at best.
The dishonest pretenses I was speaking to wasn't the WMD thing. The WMD theories come from the Clinton administration (there's a lovely quote by John Kerry about WMDs too). Of course it speaks to Bush's (lack of) competency he'd take information from Clinton's administration but I digress.
The pretense I take issue with was that Saddam was an active threat to the US and that the war in Iraq had something to do with terrorism when we already had known terrorists at large in other places. The real terrorists hated Saddam's regime because it was secular. I say we should have let those evil bastards kill each other.
Any way you argue it, you can't really defend Bush's actions as Constitutional, ethical, or logical in the matter. At the very best, I might be persuaded that he honestly screwed up on a truly massive scale, an action which is hardly exempt from scorn and criticism.
Post by: Mannlicher on September 14, 2007, 12:10:31 PM
Post by: SteveS on September 14, 2007, 12:29:27 PM
While nation building an ally in the region with a secular government first seemed like a good idea to me, it's now apparent that Iraq isn't going to be another Japan.
This portion of Iraq's Constitution seems problematic to me:
Article (2):
1st Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
How is this going to work?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 14, 2007, 12:58:48 PM
Quote
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
Um. Sharia law is absolutely contradictory to democracy. I have no idea how that's supposed to work.
If you break the laws, you die. If you try to leave the religion, you die. That's...um...democratic...
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 01:02:55 PM
If you break the laws, you die. If you try to leave the religion, you die. That's...um...democratic...
What stops a democracy from having a death penalty? If enough Americans wanted it, they could repeal the "equal protection" clause and then make circumcision a capital crime. (They might get away without amending the Constitution, depending who sits in SCOTUS.)
--Len.
Post by: SteveS on September 14, 2007, 01:55:47 PM
If you break the laws, you die. If you try to leave the religion, you die. That's...um...democratic...
What stops a democracy from having a death penalty? If enough Americans wanted it, they could repeal the "equal protection" clause and then make circumcision a capital crime. (They might get away without amending the Constitution, depending who sits in SCOTUS.)
--Len.
You are correct, but I have a hard time seeing how the Iraqi gov't will work under that Constitution. Can democracy trump Islamic law? Our Constitution allows for an amendment process, the Koran, I presume, doesn't. The Soviet Constitution contained all sorts of rights that were never followed. Will that happen here?
Post by: Len Budney on September 14, 2007, 02:43:03 PM
... I have a hard time seeing how the Iraqi gov't will work under that Constitution. Can democracy trump Islamic law?
It doesn't have to. They're a constitutional republic (in theory, anyway), and their constitution includes the Koran. And they won't be amending it. A law kicking out the Jews would be unconstitutional in America, but it would probably be upheld in Iraq. That's every bit as constitutional as the US; it's just a different constitution.
--Len.
Post by: De Selby on September 14, 2007, 02:47:01 PM
Quote
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
Um. Sharia law is absolutely contradictory to democracy. I have no idea how that's supposed to work.
If you break the laws, you die. If you try to leave the religion, you die. That's...um...democratic...
Uh, where did you get your conclusions as to what is "Sharia law"?
I keep seeing this claim repeated. Where does support for the claim come from?
Post by: Ron on September 14, 2007, 03:52:59 PM
Quote
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
Looks like the sausage factory of representative government has started in Iraq to me.
There will be arguments, compromises and synthesis to make what appears to be contradictory philosophies work together all through the legislative process. Just because it doesn't look like our democratic republic doesn't mean it is doomed to failure. It is the beginning of freedom for the region. Baby steps working through the contradictions between their religion and freedom. Iraq has the potential to become a showcase for the success of "moderated" Islam and it's relationship to the modern world.
Post by: SteveS on September 14, 2007, 06:12:47 PM
... I have a hard time seeing how the Iraqi gov't will work under that Constitution. Can democracy trump Islamic law?
It doesn't have to. They're a constitutional republic (in theory, anyway), and their constitution includes the Koran. And they won't be amending it. A law kicking out the Jews would be unconstitutional in America, but it would probably be upheld in Iraq. That's every bit as constitutional as the US; it's just a different constitution.
--Len.
What about a ruling by one of the religious leaders on Islamic law that goes against democracy? Who wins? Maybe this does have potential, but I see more of a theocracy then a secular state.
Post by: Mabs2 on September 14, 2007, 06:18:22 PM
The issue is that the war was started under illegal and dishonest pretenses, and was a political ploy and not motivated by any desire to fight terrorism or any noble cause at all.
We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay. Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.
Pretty much sums up my stance on the war, I think.We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay. Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.
It was started unconstitutionally...but it was started, so we have to finish it. I agree we are doing good works over there. But I don't think it'd end well if we just up and pulled out completely all of a sudden.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 14, 2007, 08:14:45 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on September 14, 2007, 08:17:02 PM
The issue is that the war was started under illegal and dishonest pretenses, and was a political ploy and not motivated by any desire to fight terrorism or any noble cause at all.
We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay. Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.
Pretty much sums up my stance on the war, I think.We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay. Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.
It was started unconstitutionally...but it was started, so we have to finish it. I agree we are doing good works over there. But I don't think it'd end well if we just up and pulled out completely all of a sudden.
Post by: Len Budney on September 15, 2007, 02:23:33 AM
What about a ruling by one of the religious leaders on Islamic law that goes against democracy?
A constitutional republic is NOT a democracy. A democracy can decide to kill Jews if the majority votes for it. A constitutional republic CAN'T, even IF a majority votes for it, if the Constitution says it can't. The second amendment is "against democracy"; if 51% of Americans want gun control, they still can't have it.
Same goes for Iraq. If 51% of Iraqis want to drink booze, too bad. Islam (and hence the Constitution) says they can't.
--Len.
Post by: SteveS on September 15, 2007, 03:37:37 AM
Post by: gaston_45 on September 15, 2007, 05:31:35 AM
Y'mean the polls that the Ron Zombies all pile on and tell each other to pile on and skew?
Oops, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevHlTcg2X4
What's the next excuse?
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 15, 2007, 10:21:47 AM
Quote
On the other hand, I agree that it's unlikely he'll win, for a simple reason: pretty much everyone who gets his paycheck from Uncle Sam can be expected to vote against Ron Paul. And that's almost half the country right there.
I humbly submit that anyone who takes in more government money than he pays out in taxes should be prohibited from voting. That would include most defense contractors, almost all government employees, and everyone on the dole. Their bread is buttered on the wrong side.
I humbly submit that anyone who takes in more government money than he pays out in taxes should be prohibited from voting. That would include most defense contractors, almost all government employees, and everyone on the dole. Their bread is buttered on the wrong side.
Yeah, we retired military types are such statist morons. Oops, pardon me, just washed my brain, can't do a thing with it.
On second thought, this rubs me very wrong. Do people actually read what they're typing on internet forums these days? Half the country (about 150 million souls, last I checked) gets their paycheck from Uncle Sam? Not hardly, and why are government employees not deserving of the right to vote, specifically?
Let me offer some assistance in preventing further instances of foot-in-mouth disease. I'm going to say this once folks, and it's not just for Len's sake. Lest we forget, Mike laid out some fairly basic ground rules for this new Politics Place. Consider your audience and fellow forum members - they represent a varied and diverse slice of society. Think twice, post once.
(Yes, there are more than a few government employees and pensioners here at APS, and I don't particulary care to offend them, either. It's rude, and not the way we do things at APS, period.)
Post by: Len Budney on September 15, 2007, 10:51:53 AM
Quote
I humbly submit that anyone who takes in more government money than he pays out in taxes should be prohibited from voting. That would include most defense contractors, almost all government employees, and everyone on the dole. Their bread is buttered on the wrong side.
Yeah, we retired military types are such statist morons. Oops, pardon me, just washed my brain, can't do a thing with it.
I can't control whether you take offense, but the fact is that roughly 1/2 of all Americans profit directly from tax dollars. Cutting government spending means cutting their pay. The vast majority of them will not vote to cut the program which pays for their groceries. Restricting the franchise to net tax losers, and excluding net tax gainers, is of course offered tongue in cheek.
More seriously, though, I blame the ones doing the stealing much more than the ones receiving the proceeds of the theft. Many of the latter are as innocent as the barber that cut Al Capone's hair. They're paid with the fruits of crime, but they aren't themselves criminals. The real answer is to shut down Al Capone, not to arrest his barber for receiving stolen funds. In the same way, the federal government needs to be shut down, or at least shrunk to a fraction of its current size. They're the ones doing the stealing.
That WILL meet with resistance though. Al Capone's barber may have been sad to lose such a good tipper; the same for his maid, his landscaper and his accountant. In the same way, net tax gainers will be sad to see their gravy train shut down, and many of them will whine about it. They'll naturally offer the most altruistic reasons why their programs are vital and should be preserved, of course.
--Len.
Post by: Gewehr98 on September 15, 2007, 11:26:52 AM
You can indeed control whether or not you offend folks here at APS. I'm retired military with a healthy pension, and another moderator is a current government contractor. That doesn't even begin to address the others here who pay taxes on their government paychecks. (Yes, it's taxable income)
Forgive me if I didn't consult with you 20+ years ago prior to my last career - my bad. However, saying my livelihood and other members' chosen professions come from theft is not how we make friends here. You may think it's funny, or tongue-in-cheek. When Market Anarchists take over the world, then we'll revisit who does and doesn't have a sense of humor.
We know you like stirring the pot from your THR days. Just watch how vigorously you stir it here, and who you splatter with it, capiche? I wouldn't want you to stir yourself right out of APS.
As Mike stated, the Politics Place will be quite seriously moderated. The succcess and longevity of this particular subforum hinges on how well we conduct ourselves. I'd prefer we didn't leave the starting gates already fouled up.
Post by: Len Budney on September 15, 2007, 11:48:18 AM
Ok, here's how it's going to work, Len.
Are you speaking as a moderator, or as the forum's owner? Or are you speaking personally in a private capacity?
Quote
You can indeed control whether or not you offend folks here at APS. I'm retired military with a healthy pension, and another moderator is a current government contractor. That doesn't even begin to address the others here who pay taxes on their government paychecks. (Yes, it's taxable income)
When I say that money is taken by force from A, and then given to B, I'm stating a fact. Calling the forcible takings "taxes" doesn't change that particular fact. When I observe that taking money by force is immoral, and is also known as "theft," I'm stating a moral opinion, but one which comes pretty directly from the definition of "theft." My conscience impels me to call immorality by its proper name, so I will in fact do this. I have NOT, however, directed any personal attack at any individual, and the fact that you choose to take what I say personally doesn't alter that fact.
Quote
Forgive me if I didn't consult with you 20+ years ago prior to my last career...
Why do you feel some sort of need to justify yourself to me? I neither have, nor want, any authority over you, and can't imagine why my opinions should cause you to lose any sleep.
Quote
However, saying my livelihood and other members' chosen professions come from theft is not how we make friends here. You may think it's funny, or tongue-in-cheek.
My reference to the franchise was tongue-in-cheek. Taxation IS theft, and there's nothing tongue-in-cheek about that. As I clearly stated, however, receiving tax money doesn't automatically make one a thief. Please don't place that construction on my words, since I never said it--and in fact have said the opposite.
Quote
We know you like stirring the pot from your THR days. Just watch how vigorously you stir it here, and who you splatter with it, capiche? I wouldn't want you to stir yourself right out of APS.
Again with authoritarian and threatening language. I ask once again if you're acting in some sort of official capacity, or if you're just talking smack.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on September 15, 2007, 01:13:35 PM
Quote
When I say that money is taken by force from A, and then given to B, I'm stating a fact. Calling the forcible takings "taxes" doesn't change that particular fact. When I observe that taking money by force is immoral, and is also known as "theft," I'm stating a moral opinion, but one which comes pretty directly from the definition of "theft." My conscience impels me to call immorality by its proper name, so I will in fact do this.
Taxes aren't going away anytime soon, so you'd might as well get used to them. Otherwise, you're going to be unhappy for a loooooooooooong time. The ability to accept reality is an essential component of the maturation process.
Post by: Len Budney on September 15, 2007, 01:53:25 PM
Quote
When I say that money is taken by force from A, and then given to B, I'm stating a fact. Calling the forcible takings "taxes" doesn't change that particular fact. When I observe that taking money by force is immoral, and is also known as "theft," I'm stating a moral opinion, but one which comes pretty directly from the definition of "theft." My conscience impels me to call immorality by its proper name, so I will in fact do this.
Taxes aren't going away anytime soon, so you'd might as well get used to them. Otherwise, you're going to be unhappy for a loooooooooooong time.
You're not telling me anything new. The world isn't converting to Christ anytime soon, either. The welfare state isn't going away. Socialism isn't going away in Europe, and socialized medicine is very probably coming in the US. The US itself stands at best a 50/50 chance of surviving another century, and if it falls, the earth probably won't see the RKBA again for hundreds of years. There's even a chance that the RKBA will vanish in the US. Men have been murdering since Cain.
In short, anyone who believes in ideals of justice is going to be unhappy for a loooooong time. The world has never been without injustice, and it will continue that way long after we're both dead (unless Messiah comes first).
Quote
The ability to accept reality is an essential component of the maturation process.
Accepting reality is not the same thing as approving it. I accept that the world is full of rape and murder, too--but you won't catch me condoning it.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 15, 2007, 03:47:27 PM
Post by: Finch on September 15, 2007, 05:20:54 PM
As cell phones become more and more widespread, more and more people use that as thier main and only phone. I only use a cell phone as does my roommate, girlfriend, and many other people I know. No pollsters do not have access to these numbers, and relent to using landlines, and those who they reach on landlines are a more disconnected bunch and are more unlikely to have heard of Ron Paul as it seems that the MSM is hell bent on giving Julianin and Romney the most face time.
Yes, the "J" was intentional, if curious, do a youtube search for rudy in a dress.
Post by: Bigjake on September 15, 2007, 06:12:42 PM
Quote
And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.
You have to be kidding me....
I'd LOVE a libertarian canidate to pop up and be everything good about the libertarian party. Ron Paul is not your man and 08' is not your year.
Ron Paul reminds me why I haven't bothered to change party affiliation yet. How's the Free State thing going, anyway??
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 15, 2007, 07:05:58 PM
If he were elected to the office of President (and the Cubs won the World Series), would he be called Dr. President Ron Paul? Or President Dr. Ron Paul?
Post by: Manedwolf on September 15, 2007, 07:50:48 PM
How's the Free State thing going, anyway??
Let's see.
One of them was just arrested for something, I forget what.
One made a total ass of themselves about a year ago by marching into the Keene IRS office in a straw hat with a pitchfork (apparently, since they just moved here, that was their stereotype of NH residents) and demanded that taxes were unlawful. This both puzzled and annoyed the police officer who apprehended them and the working professionals walking around outside the office.
Two others were arrested in Manchester for disorderly conduct, and when they were being read their rights, screamed that the Manchester city police officers were "just like the Nazis arresting the Jews".
A bunch helped derail "stand your ground" by marching into the capitol right before voting on it and making a big show of declaring the dozen-plus open-carried weapons each had, giving the antis plenty of photos and examples of "gun nuts". The bill was vetoed by the democrat governor.
Others tried to push through a measure to use state funds to finance a hemp-growing initiative. That fell on its ass, thankfully.
And I see "FREE STATERS GO HOME" bumper stickers on cars, since the best way to piss off a real northern New Englander is to be a carpetbagger newcomer who comes in and tries to tell them how things should be done.
We don't want them here. Period. They've done nothing but act like a bunch of spoiled hippies, and have screwed up everything they've shoved their nose into.
Post by: K Frame on September 15, 2007, 07:54:04 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 15, 2007, 10:50:22 PM
Quote
Lauren Canario, 51, a Keene-area resident and a member of the Free State Project, approached the partial barricade around 2:30 p.m. yesterday, U.S. Marshal Steve Monier said.
"She drove up to the checkpoint and was warned at least three times by the deputies that she could not proceed to the Browns ', and the last time she got out of the vehicle and tried to walk past us, so she was arrested," Monier said at the Lebanon police station, where he was using office space yesterday.
"She drove up to the checkpoint and was warned at least three times by the deputies that she could not proceed to the Browns ', and the last time she got out of the vehicle and tried to walk past us, so she was arrested," Monier said at the Lebanon police station, where he was using office space yesterday.
Post by: Euclidean on September 16, 2007, 12:21:00 AM
Not one solid criticism of Ron Paul's platform or candidacy has been made. Three pages. Yeah it's my fault too, I got side tracked chasing rabbits.
We've argued about the war, who should get to vote, what an online poll may or may not mean, the new Iraqi government, and the Free State project. That's all good discussion, but none of these have anything to do with Ron Paul's campaign really, beyond the first issue.
But not one solid criticism. Just cryptic comments like "Ron Paul Zombies", "You make me regret voting for him", and "He's not the man in 2008" which express opinion but don't do anything to solidly criticize his running platform. The opposition to the man's candidacy seems to be based on some unspoken emotional objection more than anything.
I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Another Bush/Kerry decision is not what I want. For a change I'm going to support the candidate whose platform is the best I've seen available for the election in question. This candidate makes the most sense to me, no one has told me any good reason not to support his candidacy, and even when I've opened it up to informed, opinionated people, I still have no answer to the question "Why vote for anybody but Ron Paul?"
Maybe the question is not a good question. Feel free to answer who you are voting for instead, and why. Even if Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, I still want to minimize the damage the '08 elections will inflict.
Post by: Ron on September 16, 2007, 04:36:56 AM
Ron Paul would have us ignore those promises and retreat to a "fortress" America foreign policy that would leave many allies at the mercy of their (our) enemies.
In the sausage factory of US legislation small steps are taken in the direction of the philosophy of whichever party has the majority. In typical libertarian fashion Ron Paul shows his contempt for the American people by declaring he wants to undue in big fell swoops what the people have done through their representatives over many years.
It is a shame the Republican Liberty Caucus was/is such an ineffectual organization. If the libertarians want to change government it will be in small steps and small changes brought about by congresscitters who share libertarian ideals. That requires the American people being educated and wanting them instituted by voting in people who hold those ideals.
Ron Pauls myopic foreign policy views (while tempting in a nationalistic way) are not based in the real world of geopolitics. If elected he would have to abandon all his libertarian ideals and deal with the reality on the ground. I prefer to vote for someone who has already put some serious thought into their foreign policy before they got elected.
Post by: Barbara on September 16, 2007, 05:13:03 AM
But he's not the guy. He's unelectable, regardless of how you look at it.
There aren't any other really great Republican candidates. Thompson at this point looks moderately tolerable, especially given a choice between him and Hillary. The other leading candidates, Republican and Democrat, look an awful lot like Hillary, to be honest.
Post by: K Frame on September 16, 2007, 05:28:20 AM
Take that as a strong hint.
Post by: Ben on September 16, 2007, 10:01:44 AM
Quote
The other leading candidates, Republican and Democrat, look an awful lot like Hillary, to be honest.
Repeated because it's true. They all seem to be working on a , "what twist can I put on a Hillary topic that will make it appeal to my supporters?" I can see it as a good strategy from the Dem side, but extremely disappointing from the Rep side.
I also believe at this time Thompson is the most tolerable of the group.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 16, 2007, 10:14:58 AM
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy. I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas. I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all. Different sets for different people also. Someone like Paul needs to come up with a platform to run on and focus on just a few of those libertarian ideas and try not to get away from it. If memory serves, this is what Bush did when he ran for governor in Texas some years back. I remember hearing speeches at the beginning and end of his campaign and they were both largely the same since he focused on a few issues and stuck to them.
Post by: Len Budney on September 16, 2007, 10:45:24 AM
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy. I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas. I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all. Different sets for different people also.
That's true, but it's somewhat the nature of the beast. One either believes in non-initiation of aggression or one doesn't, and the fact is that almost every human really does believe in initiating aggression when it benefits themselves. Hence almost everyone is bound to disagree violently with a libertarian in some aspect or other.
Nonagression is unnatural.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 11:13:57 AM
Ron Paul is the next Alan Keyes.
Chucking 200 years of regulatory and governmental history and starting over like we were some obscure country half-way across the world might appeal to feeble-minded teenagers stoned out in a midnight dorm session.
But it won't appeal to any significant number of voters.
And his stance on Iraq--foreign policy in general--alienates what ought to be his conservative base.
But I will admit that sandwiches would taste lots better if Ron Paul were presidents.
Post by: gaston_45 on September 16, 2007, 11:17:47 AM
But he's not the guy. He's unelectable, regardless of how you look at it.
And yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85tdRwC37k plus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevHlTcg2X4 would indicate otherwise.
200 years?? No, not 200 years, more like 40 to 60 years. I don't remember the founders voting for welfare, foreign wars, or the IRS, did I miss something? And thanks for the ad homenum but I'm neither a teen ager, stoned, or feeble minded.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 11:25:15 AM
But he's not the guy. He's unelectable, regardless of how you look at it.
And yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85tdRwC37k plus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevHlTcg2X4 would indicate otherwise.
200 years?? No, not 200 years, more like 40 to 60 years. I don't remember the founders voting for welfare, foreign wars, or the IRS, did I miss something? And thanks for the ad homenum but I'm neither a teen ager, stoned, or feeble minded.
Hmm, yeah. You missed something all right. Try looking for Whiskey Rebellion, Barbary Pirates, Cuba, Mexican American War.
Then when you've done that, look for Interstate Commerce Commission, Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve, and Pure Food and Drug Act.
Oh yeah. And it's "ad hominem" not homenum. Just add that to your list of things to be learned.
Post by: Bogie on September 16, 2007, 11:27:51 AM
It's "vote for anyone but a Republican."
Personally, I'm voting for anyone but Hillary. Because while a 10% vote for libertarians may be a footnote in a history book at some time (if it is allowed to be written...), I'd rather not see Clinton win by 1% of the vote...
Post by: gaston_45 on September 16, 2007, 11:52:21 AM
"The Commission's five members were appointed by the President with the consent of the United States Senate. This was the first independent agency (or so-called Fourth Branch). The ICC's original purpose was to regulate railroads (and later trucking) to ensure fair rates, to eliminate rate discrimination, and to regulate other aspects of common carriers." And this relates to... anything remotely being discussed how?
"Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (or OCC) was established by the National Currency Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks." Again, relevance?
"It took the political influence of newly elected Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, along with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, to get the Aldrich Plan passed as the Federal Reserve Act in 1913." Ohhhh, getting closer, 94 years.
"The Mexican-American War was an armed military conflict between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848 in the wake of the 1845 U.S. annexation of Texas. Mexico did not recognize the secession of Texas in 1836; it considered Texas a rebel province." Uh.... yeah.
"The Pure Food and Drug Act of June 30, 1906 is a United States federal law that provided for federal inspection of meat products, and forbade the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated food products or poisonous patent medicines." Closest yet, 101 years.
"Though the Pure Food and Drug Act was initially concerned with making sure products were labeled correctly (habit forming cocaine-based drugs were not illegal so long as they were labeled correctly), the labeling requirement gave way to efforts to outlaw certain products that were not safe, followed by efforts to outlaw products which were safe but not efficacious." Great example of why Ron Paul wants to abolish a lot of the agencies and laws don't you think?
Oh yeah, great catch on the spelling, glad the important and relevant part of the post was so soundly refuted. Yep, I'm totally ignorant and my whole argument is negated by a spelling error. Way to soundly argue that one.
Edited for grammatical error... saved you the time.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 11:59:17 AM
I think you've answered your own question.
Thanks.
Post by: gaston_45 on September 16, 2007, 12:02:38 PM
Post by: Bogie on September 16, 2007, 12:11:48 PM
Post by: gaston_45 on September 16, 2007, 12:17:28 PM
And yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85tdRwC37k plus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevHlTcg2X4 would indicate otherwise.
Post by: Len Budney on September 16, 2007, 12:52:31 PM
Hmm, yeah. You missed something all right. Try looking for Whiskey Rebellion...
The Whiskey rebellion was an act of injustice. Nobody ever said that GW was perfect.
--Len.
Post by: beaucoup ammo on September 16, 2007, 01:53:29 PM
Out of the 53 people I asked (most every age/sex demographic), all but 5 had heard of Ron Paul and 26 of the 53 wanted him in the White House. That's 50% give or take. I have a lot of time on my hands.
Post by: Waitone on September 16, 2007, 02:08:17 PM
We may think Paul rates up there with sliced bread and pop tops but bare-knuckled reality is Paul will be destroyed by the republican establishment (the same one which gave us the Bush family) long before the election if he is projected to draw a sizable vote. There will be no more Ross Perots in the US political system.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 02:59:36 PM
I can feed and clothe myself too, sometimes I even manage to get the top off a beer bottle. Care to actually refute anything I posted on the topic of Ron Paul.. you know, since this is the Ron Paul thread??
That's easy.
You haven't posted ANYTHING on Ron Paul.
What can be said that hasn't been said already? Ron Paul needs to get out of the race. His fundraising stinks. His poll numbers are dismal. Whatever he might have contributed to the Republican side, he has done so already. He has narrow, very limited appeal, especially in the Republican base.
I'd put him in the same class as Tom Tancredo. And that ain't nowhere.
Post by: roo_ster on September 16, 2007, 03:58:09 PM
Thing is, candidates who poll a level of support smaller than the margin of error are running vanity campaigns.
Also, RP's foreign policy and particularly his talk on Iraq during the debates is a big turn off to the folks who might vote for a Republican. Not to mention in error.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 05:03:02 PM
I like the vast majority of RP's positions.
Thing is, candidates who poll a level of support smaller than the margin of error are running vanity campaigns.
Also, RP's foreign policy and particularly his talk on Iraq during the debates is a big turn off to the folks who might vote for a Republican. Not to mention in error.
Thing is, candidates who poll a level of support smaller than the margin of error are running vanity campaigns.
Also, RP's foreign policy and particularly his talk on Iraq during the debates is a big turn off to the folks who might vote for a Republican. Not to mention in error.
A lot of us would find a lot to agree about with Ron Paul's positions. We're all in favor of less government at many levels. I could think of a dozen gov't programs I'd like to see gone tomorrow.
But that doesn't translate into a viable political campaign, especially when coupled with a doctrinaire approach to foreign policy.
But I admit sandwiches would taste better under a Paul presidency.
Post by: K Frame on September 16, 2007, 07:33:27 PM
But he's not the guy. He's unelectable, regardless of how you look at it.
And yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i85tdRwC37k plus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevHlTcg2X4 would indicate otherwise.
200 years?? No, not 200 years, more like 40 to 60 years. I don't remember the founders voting for welfare, foreign wars, or the IRS, did I miss something? And thanks for the ad homenum but I'm neither a teen ager, stoned, or feeble minded.
First, it's ad hominem.
Second, that wasn't an ad hominem attack. Rabbi never claimed that you were any of the above.
Third, the founders/framers didn't vote for welfare, foreign wars, or the IRS. However, they put into place a legislative, legal, and executive system that allowed growth into those areas.
Fourth, is anyone else getting REALLY tired of what seems to be the new internet buzzword... ad hominem?
Fifth, this thread is perilously close to becoming the first thread in the political section to be closed. Keep that in mind as you frame your discussion points.
Post by: Paddy on September 16, 2007, 07:56:10 PM
Post by: Bogie on September 16, 2007, 07:57:38 PM
Remember - dumb people vote too. Which candidate will win American Idol 2008?
For 1992, it was the one who played the sax...
Same thing in the corp world - if you don't look the part, you don't get the job. Guys who have a chance at the fast track have been known to have hired coaches, to do everything from hair and wardrobe to voice coaching... I'm dead serious. Been there, seen it.
Post by: Paddy on September 16, 2007, 08:06:50 PM
Campers, ever since Kennedy "cheated" by using makeup in his debate against Nixon, television has had a sizable effect.
Remember - dumb people vote too. Which candidate will win American Idol 2008?
For 1992, it was the one who played the sax...
Same thing in the corp world - if you don't look the part, you don't get the job. Guys who have a chance at the fast track have been known to have hired coaches, to do everything from hair and wardrobe to voice coaching... I'm dead serious. Been there, seen it.
Remember - dumb people vote too. Which candidate will win American Idol 2008?
For 1992, it was the one who played the sax...
Same thing in the corp world - if you don't look the part, you don't get the job. Guys who have a chance at the fast track have been known to have hired coaches, to do everything from hair and wardrobe to voice coaching... I'm dead serious. Been there, seen it.
I call if 'form over function' and it works every time. Give people what they expect plus a little more, and you own them. We are suckers, big time.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 17, 2007, 04:57:38 PM
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy. I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas. I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all. Different sets for different people also.
That's true, but it's somewhat the nature of the beast. One either believes in non-initiation of aggression or one doesn't, and the fact is that almost every human really does believe in initiating aggression when it benefits themselves. Hence almost everyone is bound to disagree violently with a libertarian in some aspect or other.
Nonagression is unnatural.
--Len.
This is a classic example of why this thread is frustrating and entertaining to read. A smart sounding answer that has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the arguments made or the purpose of this thread.
I assume it is because you are focused on Ron Paul's Iraq statements while I was refering to the entire panorama of Libertarian Party platform. You should have joined in on the "anarchy" thread a while back. That statement would fit right in.
Post by: Len Budney on September 17, 2007, 05:45:18 PM
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy. I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas. I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all. Different sets for different people also.
That's true, but it's somewhat the nature of the beast. One either believes in non-initiation of aggression or one doesn't, and the fact is that almost every human really does believe in initiating aggression when it benefits themselves. Hence almost everyone is bound to disagree violently with a libertarian in some aspect or other.
I assume it is because you are focused on Ron Paul's Iraq statements while I was refering to the entire panorama of Libertarian Party platform.
I'm referring to the entire panorama. Lots of people agree with Ron Paul about Iraq, but they hate his views on socialized medicine--because they believe in forcing others to pay their medical bills. Others support his views on socialized medicine, but hate his position on Iraq. There reasons vary, but they all boil down to endorsing aggressive war, whether it's to oust Saddam, or to impose democracy at gunpoint, or for other reasons. Some agree with him on Iraq and socialized medicine, but hate his views on free trade--because they support the use of force to keep out competition from Mexico, or to shore up their union wages, etc. Most "Christians" hate his views on drug legalization because they are willing to impose their morality on others by force. The AMA hates him because he would weaken their cartel control on medical care. The teachers' union hates him because he would get the federal government out of the education business, opening them up to more competition from charter, private and home schools. Defense contractors hate him because he would put most of them out of a job by using the military only for defense of the US. Government employees hate him, because there's a 96% chance that Ron Paul would shut down their department and force them to get a real job. Tree huggers hate him because he won't forcibly intervene to save the snail darter; gun banners hate him because he wouldn't disarm the people..
Ron Paul's views are absolutely, 100% nonaggressive. OK, 99.5% at least--nobody's perfect. But in a platform for which every plank is based on leaving people alone, taking nothing by force, never using force in any way for personal advantage... there's something for everyone to hate. Just about everyone benefits in some way from aggression, and wants to keep it that way.
--Len.
Post by: Finch on September 17, 2007, 10:10:29 PM
Quote
Government employees hate him, because there's a 96% chance that Ron Paul would shut down their department
I work for the TSA and look forward to the day that Ron Paul shuts us down.....
But that is just me.
Post by: doczinn on September 17, 2007, 10:23:55 PM
Post by: Michigander on September 18, 2007, 01:35:06 AM
There are a lot of good excuses, but no good reasons.
All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are more of the same for worse. Ron Paul is change for the better.
JMO of course, because none of us really know what would happen if Ron Paul became President. Although we can all be 99.9% sure what will happen if any of the others become President.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 02:58:57 AM
There is no good reason to vote for anyone other than Ron Paul as long as he is in the race. No good reason.
There are a lot of good excuses, but no good reasons.
All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are more of the same for worse. Ron Paul is change for the better.
JMO of course, because none of us really know what would happen if Ron Paul became President. Although we can all be 99.9% sure what will happen if any of the others become President.
There are a lot of good excuses, but no good reasons.
All the other candidates, Democrat or Republican, are more of the same for worse. Ron Paul is change for the better.
JMO of course, because none of us really know what would happen if Ron Paul became President. Although we can all be 99.9% sure what will happen if any of the others become President.
There are 4 pages of good reasons, if you'd bother to read them. They range from his inherent unelectibility to his positions on foreign policy.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 18, 2007, 04:59:58 AM
I like a lot of libertarian ideas, but you have to admit that libertarians are many times their own worst enemy. I guess being a long time small 3rd party they have attracted a lot of fringe groups and fringe ideas. I think a lot of people in their country could accept some sets of those ideas, but not all. Different sets for different people also.
That's true, but it's somewhat the nature of the beast. One either believes in non-initiation of aggression or one doesn't, and the fact is that almost every human really does believe in initiating aggression when it benefits themselves. Hence almost everyone is bound to disagree violently with a libertarian in some aspect or other.
I assume it is because you are focused on Ron Paul's Iraq statements while I was refering to the entire panorama of Libertarian Party platform.
I'm referring to the entire panorama. Lots of people agree with Ron Paul about Iraq, but they hate his views on socialized medicine--because they believe in forcing others to pay their medical bills. Others support his views on socialized medicine, but hate his position on Iraq. There reasons vary, but they all boil down to endorsing aggressive war, whether it's to oust Saddam, or to impose democracy at gunpoint, or for other reasons. Some agree with him on Iraq and socialized medicine, but hate his views on free trade--because they support the use of force to keep out competition from Mexico, or to shore up their union wages, etc. Most "Christians" hate his views on drug legalization because they are willing to impose their morality on others by force. The AMA hates him because he would weaken their cartel control on medical care. The teachers' union hates him because he would get the federal government out of the education business, opening them up to more competition from charter, private and home schools. Defense contractors hate him because he would put most of them out of a job by using the military only for defense of the US. Government employees hate him, because there's a 96% chance that Ron Paul would shut down their department and force them to get a real job. Tree huggers hate him because he won't forcibly intervene to save the snail darter; gun banners hate him because he wouldn't disarm the people..
Ron Paul's views are absolutely, 100% nonaggressive. OK, 99.5% at least--nobody's perfect. But in a platform for which every plank is based on leaving people alone, taking nothing by force, never using force in any way for personal advantage... there's something for everyone to hate. Just about everyone benefits in some way from aggression, and wants to keep it that way.
--Len.
Good intentions applied badly are more dangerous than hate and aggression (at least in a country like ours).
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 05:18:02 AM
I think you are placing hate and aggression where they don't belong. I don't think our government has expanded to it's present size because of hate. I think it got that way because of misguided intentions.
I agree with you 100%. Humans are basically decent people, and if they consider something to be "stealing," for example, they won't do it. The trouble is that most of us sometimes do go ahead and steal, as long as we can rationalize what we're doing. We commit aggression, but usually only when we can convince ourselves that it isn't aggression. For example:
Quote
Did LBJ create his Great Society legislation out of hate? I don't think so. I think it was just misguided good intentions and he did not consider the full consequences of his actions...
Agreed. (OK, I do think that LBJ was at least partly motivated by purely selfish motives, but lets ignore that.) His good intentions to "help the poor," etc., blinded him to the fact that he was doing so with stolen money. The end was so appealing that it didn't exactly justify the means so much as distract us from even looking at the means. As a result, he launched a program of systematic theft on a massive scale, but believed the entire time that he was doing something good.
Quote
A lot of people are very hesitant about legalizing drugs because they worry about drugs destroying the lives of a great deal more people. Not because they hate anyone. They just aren't thinking about the issues of freedom of choice and such.
Agreed. But the net result is the same: some people oppose Ron Paul because "he'll turn our children into druggies." Others because "he doesn't care about the poor." Others because "he'll let Mexicans steal our jobs." And so on. Everyone involved has, or thinks he has, the purest of motives. What none of them realize is that each of their glittering ideals is founded on force and aggression, and improper means are out of the question even in pursuit of the most lofty goals. In other words, everyone has certain kinds of aggression that he regards as necessary, or even right, and he refuses to renounce or even to admit that it's aggression.
Quote
Good intentions applied badly are more dangerous than hate and aggression (at least in a country like ours).
I'm with you all the way.
If you want to see the hate, though, just pick someone at random, talk about non-aggression, and then point out his sacred cow which involves aggression. You'll experience the hate quick enough. Whether it's welfare, invasive war, farm subsidies, steel tariffs, defense contracts, highway funds, socialized health care, social security or anything else, mention it and watch a human explode like a powder keg.
As an aside, I've had this same conversation on a Christian mailing list. I pointed out that the eighth and tenth commandments absolutely forbid theft, or even coveting--but that we heartily approve coveting and theft in the name of the welfare state. I'd have thought that Bible-reading Christians would be absolutist in their condemnation of theft, but like everyone else... certain kinds of theft aren't theft. Indeed, that's exactly what the state is there for: so you can tell the difference. If the state does it, it isn't theft.
--Len.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 18, 2007, 09:57:50 AM
Ron Paul is change for the better.
Well, "better" is debatable, but at least it's change. I'm tired of hearing all about change in every election cycle only to end up with the same level of BS that we had before.Ron Paul doesn't have to promise change. If you listen to him speak, or read his writings, it's fairly obvious that we're in for some big changes if he becomes POTUS.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 18, 2007, 12:25:47 PM
I think that is where most people fall off the wagon of limited govt. Their emotions tell them they they have to help the children or something like that and they say to themselves "we can make this one exception". Only they end up allowing a million exceptions and their emotional thinking failed to see those exceptions were much larger than they thought. Certainly some people make these decisions with eyes open, but I think that is why most people end up thinking the way they do. For many it is just a matter of no one has shown them there is a better way or they don't believe them. For this reason, I like someone like Ron putting his word out about alternatives to the way we are doing things. It gets at least a few people thinking. (I still wouldn't vote for him.
)Most of the liberal types that I have been able to talk to exhibit this sort of "exception" type thinking. They see everything in grays and find it difficult to hold hard stances on principles.
Len, I think we are saying many of the same things, we just approach it a little differently. Not a problem as long as you think about who the audience is you are trying to convince.
Post by: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 02:46:45 PM
Most of the liberal types that I have been able to talk to exhibit this sort of "exception" type thinking. They see everything in grays and find it difficult to hold hard stances on principles.
That's true, but conservatives do the same. For example, conservatives tend to support enforcement of victimless crime laws.
Quote
Len, I think we are saying many of the same things, we just approach it a little differently. Not a problem as long as you think about who the audience is you are trying to convince.
Yes, I think you're right.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on September 19, 2007, 12:05:23 PM
First I call Dr. Paul that because it's the socially accepted means of addressing a practicing medical doctor. I realize there are people who are not medical doctors who have PhDs, some of whom use the "Dr." honorific.
The only issue of substance I've really seen reiterated here, over and over again, is the foreign policy stance. I'll simply address this by quoting Ron Paul himself with a little bolding on my part:
Quote
"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world."
~ George Washington
I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
~ George Washington
I have written before about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive.
But what policy is best? How should we deal with the rest of the world in a way that best advances proper national interests, while not threatening our freedoms at home?
I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism.
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations entangling alliances with none." Washington similarly urged that we must, "Act for ourselves and not for others," by forming an "American character wholly free of foreign attachments."
Yet how many times have we all heard these wise words without taking them to heart? How many claim to admire Jefferson and Washington, but conveniently ignore both when it comes to American foreign policy? Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.
Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, "times have changed," and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today's government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
It's hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today's more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 12:24:34 PM
Quote
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Exactly. By the usual twisted definition, not breaking into my neighbors' house and gunning down their kids makes me "antisocial."
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 12:27:17 PM
Quote
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Exactly. By the usual twisted definition, not breaking into my neighbors' house and gunning down their kids makes me "antisocial."
--Len.
Why are you always drawing inappropriate analogies to private persons? A state is not a person. There is a distinction, as I hope you learned in a different thread.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 12:32:57 PM
Quote
Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Exactly. By the usual twisted definition, not breaking into my neighbors' house and gunning down their kids makes me "antisocial."
Why are you always drawing inappropriate analogies to private persons? A state is not a person. There is a distinction, as I hope you learned in a different thread.
I learned that by your definition, there's nothing wrong with a Holocaust if the masses generally support it. Hopefully nothing gave you the impression that I ever accepted this crazy idea. On the contrary, there is a morality which is higher than any government, and against which a government can be judged as "just" or "unjust," or as "right" or "wrong."
In particular, it's immoral for me to murder innocents--and it's immoral for agents of the state to do the same. Appurtenances of office do not sanctify immoral actions.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 12:35:21 PM
But on that note, where does this "morality" stem from? Why is this morality you've discovered superior to every other morality out there? Why is a state obligated to follow it, or even be moral at all?
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 12:56:30 PM
That of course dodged the question and the whole issue. I didnt really expect you to answer it of course because that would be damaging.
I answered it: the analogy is not inappropriate. When you call it an "inappropriate analogy," you're begging a question that you haven't begun to settle with argumentation.
Quote
But on that note, where does this "morality" stem from? Why is this morality you've discovered superior to every other morality out there? Why is a state obligated to follow it, or even be moral at all?
I've already answered that question with some specificity, although briefly. There are many approaches to the question of morality, because there is of course no such thing as "objective" morality in the sense that the Greeks or Ayn Rand wished there were.
One approach, which I've already mentioned, is to ask where you get the authority to impose your will on me. "You" here refers to whichever agent of force might be trying to coerce me in some way, but would in principle include you specifically if you attempt to assert that I'm obligated to comply with this or that act of coercion. You'll of course cite some figure higher up the chain of authority, and say, "the Mayor," or "Congress," or "the Constitution," or "the President." I will in turn ask where these agents got the authority that they're delegating to you. You will eventually have no recourse but to reply that might makes right, and that if I don't comply I'll be jailed, or deported, or killed. Most people conclude with a lurid and snide reference to what happens to prisoners, like, "Say hello to your new husband 'Bunk Muffin' for me when you get to Sing-Sing."
The second approach, which I've also mentioned, is to point out that your viewpoint divides mankind into predators and prey. There are those who can command, extort, kill, etc., and those who have no choice but to endure these crimes. My viewpoint applies to everyone equally. In raising this point, I hope that your inborn empathy will remind you that you wouldn't like my aggressing against you if might were on my side, and therefore you might ought to extend the same courtesy to others, and expect the same in return. Specifically, you will not condone anyone's acts of initiated aggression, even when you personally are not the victim. (If you were the victim, then I'm sure we can already count on you to squawk.)
The third approach, which I've also mentioned, is the utilitarian one: if you genuinely believe that might makes right, then you leave me no choice but to defend myself against your aggression. I cannot expect civilized behavior of you, because you've already informed me that you have no particular intention of respecting my right to be left alone as long as I'm leaving you alone. If that's the case, then I'd still be happy to convince you--but whether or not I convince you, I will resist you. Since we have no moral common ground, I will not take into account whether you recognize the validity of my position or not.
The utilitarian viewpoint includes other considerations: for example, everyone's wellbeing is maximized in a nonaggressive society (except, by definition, the wellbeing of aggressors, which is only satisfied by depredation). Internal and external conflict as well as oppression are minimized, and economic productivity is maximized. Presumably you'd rather be prosperous, healthy, well-fed and free of fear than the opposite of those things.
Concerning the second approach, which depends on empathy and invokes the principle of reciprocity: I realize that many humans lack empathy in this regard. Conservatives feel oppressed when a liberal is in power and the White House becomes the scene of gay trysts; liberals feel oppressed when the White House hatches corporatist schemes funded by tax dollars. But both usually only wish for a reversal, so they can have their turn imposing their will on the general populace. Few decide to renounce the machinery of oppression itself.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 01:12:39 PM
You still haven't answered it.
You simply obfuscated the other question. You claim there is some kind of morality that nations are bound by. I ask where the source of that is.
as for seeing things as divided between aggressor and victim, I'm afraid that seems to be your view. I certainly don't believe that.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 01:35:46 PM
I wasn't begging the question. I demonstrated pretty conclusively that a state is not an individual, and thus subject to different standards.
Sorry, no. You didn't even try. You made some appeals to authority, some straw men and some circular arguments--but mostly you just asserted your conclusion over and over again.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 02:47:15 PM
I wasn't begging the question. I demonstrated pretty conclusively that a state is not an individual, and thus subject to different standards.
Sorry, no. You didn't even try. You made some appeals to authority, some straw men and some circular arguments--but mostly you just asserted your conclusion over and over again.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on September 19, 2007, 02:57:25 PM
Again, evasion and obfuscation. I guess it's easier than having to defend the indefensible.
Yawn. I'll reply if and when you offer any actual arguments.
--Len.
Post by: Tuco on September 19, 2007, 03:56:38 PM
i just couldn't.....
Post by: The Rabbi on September 19, 2007, 04:59:11 PM
Again, evasion and obfuscation. I guess it's easier than having to defend the indefensible.
Yawn. I'll reply if and when you offer any actual arguments.
--Len.
Arguments for what? I asked you a question and you have yet to answer it. You can't even separate a question from an argument.
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 02:09:07 AM
Arguments for what? I asked you a question and you have yet to answer it. You can't even separate a question from an argument.
Once again, your question rested on the false premise that you've proven that "nations" are above morality, and hence cannot be criticized on moral grounds; in particular, that a "nation" can kill all the innocents it wants to, and that isn't murder. Not only haven't you proven it, but you'll find it's an extreme fringe position: even the folks who generally agree with you over me concerning the Iraq war will not accept the argument that nations are above morality. Specifically, most of them would insiste that Saddam's was an immoral regime, and your view negates that position.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 20, 2007, 02:38:10 AM
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 02:41:25 AM
If that was an accurate account of what I wrote or thought you'd be right. But it isnt.
This has passed the level of tedium. It's an accurate summary of what you've said. If you claim otherwise, clarify your position. It's unspeakably boring when someone runs out of all arguments and resorts to an endless loop repeating, "You haven't answered my question," and "That's not what I said," over and over and over.
I have answered your question and it is what you said. If you feel you've been misunderstood, state your position clearly.
--Len.
Post by: Euclidean on September 20, 2007, 02:02:19 PM
#1. Not a person.
#2. Not accountable to an arbitrary morality.
I'll address each point thus.
#1. Yes obviously a state is normally not a person, it is an entity. Even a pure dictatorship usually can't point to a single person and say "that man or woman is the state in its entirety".
However, this gets us to point #2: I'll agree that the state is not accountable to Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, Humanist, Marxist, or Vanilla flavored morality, and especially not the morality of just one person. However, this is also the exact reason why the government must be as limited as possible, so that private competing moralities shared between free people to establish an ideal culture. It is not the function of government to give us standards or ideas of right and wrong.
Now, it may seem a bit of a paradox to turn around and then say that the government must conform to ethical standards, but the reason for that is that morality is objective, not subjective. Certain key concepts quickly become apparent in all moral and ethical belief systems, such as the idea it's inappropriate to initiate force on another party with no reason or provocation. To violate such a concept is morally indefensible. In other words, yes, there are moral standards we can hold up as unchallengeable. But in my humble opinion, they're very few. And really some ethics in government are just a matter of practicality. For example how the heck can you run a state if all your leaders refuse to tell the truth, regardless of whether or not they are right in their decision to lie?
As it's my personal belief that we still have much to learn about what's objectively ethical, so this is yet another reason the government must be as limited as possible. And if a good work truly needs to be done and enough people want it to be so, it will happen voluntarily and with greater effect and efficiency.
None of this has anything to do with anything, just thought I'd throw it in there.
Anyway I state again, I love this thread. There's a lot of "Ron Zombies" name calling, ridiculous comparisons, and downright insults. What's interesting here is I respect the opinions of those who disagree, and they call me names in return without substantiating their cirticism even if they do state their opinions. There's a lot of people who disagree you should vote for Ron Paul and some other candidates have been suggested, which is good, because we have to contend with the fact that good candidates don't always survive the primaries. If Dr. Paul drops out for whatever reason, it's good to have a #2 pick.
I'm going to abandon it at this point however, because I think I've gleaned what useful information there is to be had, and quite frankly I'm a bit dissappointed that Ron Paul's critics have failed to address most of his platform even though there was some discussion of substance about foreign policy. I think it's just a lot of name calling at this point, and there's still not a persuasive argument against Dr. Paul.
We have a decision to make, and I submit to you the reader that the best choice is Dr. Paul. I don't think Ron Paul is perfect or that he will make sandwiches taste better. But I sincerely believe we will be worse off if we vote for anyone else.
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 03:49:28 PM
#1. Yes obviously a state is normally not a person, it is an entity. Even a pure dictatorship usually can't point to a single person and say "that man or woman is the state in its entirety".
Subtle difference, but I'm not saying that "no man is the state." I'm saying that the state is an abstraction. It doesn't literally exist at all. People literally exist. If you swing a cat by the tail, you can bonk one. The state, on the other hand, can never be bonked, even if infinitely many monkeys swing infinitely many cats by infinitely many tails. Which brings us to:
Quote
However, this gets us to point #2: I'll agree that the state is not accountable to Christian, Jewish, Scientologist, Humanist, Marxist, or Vanilla flavored morality...
"Accountability" is a human trait. We're anthropomorphizing when we even use the word. It's like saying "Catholicism is accountable." It's clear that "Catholicism" isn't accountable and can't be; it doesn't even make sense to use the word. We realize that's nonsense readily, I think. We're slower to realize that "the Catholic Church is accountable" is meaningless, but if you think about it, it is. You can't arrest the Church, or shoot the Church, or argue with the Church. You can only argue with members of the Church, such as the Pope. Popes can be accountable, as can cardinals and priests. When we say "the Church" is accountable, we really mean that the men in it are accountable.
That's rather abstract, but it's also important. The "nation" doesn't do things: people do. We say the "nation" is doing them when we attach a certain significance to the man's actions. If a cop says you're littering and knocks you to the ground, you regard it as the "state" knocking you down. If I say you're littering and knock you down, you perceive it as assault. In both cases a man knocked you down, not a state. The sole difference is in our interpretation of the act.
This is important because the fundamental assumption is never questioned: why is it that a blue suit gives one man the power to give you commands? The "state" never told him he could do that; his "superior officer," a man, did. And where did that man get the authority? Not from the "state," but from his superior. When you chase the chain of command all the way to the end, you still don't find a "state" issuing orders: you find another man. And where did that man get the authority? Nowhere. He gets it from our belief that he has it. We believe that he isn't just a man: he's the embodiment of the "state," or the "will of the people." But those, too, are abstractions that don't exist. We might as well say he gets his authority from Odin the All-Father.
When you restrict yourself to the literal facts, there is no "state"; there are only men who claim to represent the "state" in the same way that priests represent Zeus. And unless the mythical deity, be it "Zeus" or "Lady Liberty," turns water into wine and otherwise proves her divine authority, its priests are nothing but frauds. They are just men, and they're bound by the same morality as any other man.
When I use the common language of the "state," and say that it is immoral, or guilty of a crime, or bound by morality, I'm really talking about the individual men who supposedly represent the state. They are guilty of murder, or immorality, etc.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on September 20, 2007, 05:08:22 PM
Post by: Len Budney on September 20, 2007, 05:55:04 PM
Before you leave, Euclidean (and before we go off to abstract lala land), maybe you have some idea why RP or any libertarian for that matter, can't connect with the people of this country?
I wouldn't expect one simple answer. The biggest factor, though, is that people are most comfortable with what they know, and what they know today is a far cry from nonagression or from the founders' vision. Not only don't they think things can work differently, but the idea itself is unthinkable.
If we grew up with socialized milk in the US, people would scoff at the ridiculous idea that the free market could supply anything as important as milk. We don't have socialized milk, but we have socialized quite a few other things, including roads, law enforcement, a good chunk of the health care system, etc. People find it unthinkable, and hence ridiculous, that these things could be done any way but the way they are done.
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on September 21, 2007, 01:55:00 AM
Q: Why vote for anybody but Ron Paul?
A: He likely won't be on the ballot for the general election.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 21, 2007, 02:40:09 AM
Before you leave, Euclidean (and before we go off to abstract lala land), maybe you have some idea why RP or any libertarian for that matter, can't connect with the people of this country?
I wouldn't expect one simple answer. The biggest factor, though, is that people are most comfortable with what they know, and what they know today is a far cry from nonagression or from the founders' vision. Not only don't they think things can work differently, but the idea itself is unworkable.
I
--Len.
Fixed it for ya.
Americans are smart people. Never lose faith in the American people.
Post by: Len Budney on September 21, 2007, 03:31:33 AM
Before you leave, Euclidean (and before we go off to abstract lala land), maybe you have some idea why RP or any libertarian for that matter, can't connect with the people of this country?
I wouldn't expect one simple answer. The biggest factor, though, is that people are most comfortable with what they know, and what they know today is a far cry from nonagression or from the founders' vision. Not only don't they think things can work differently, but the idea itself is
Fixed it for ya.
Americans are smart people. Never lose faith in the American people.
I didn't call anyone stupid. Habit-formation is a survival trait, and what I describe is just habit writ large. It's efficient to optimize one's behavior for the status quo. But once that's done, changing the status quo screws us all up: suddenly our habits are all wrong, and we have to form new ones. The idea of changing our most deeply-ingrained habits naturally strikes us as completely ridiculous. That's how our sense of humor works; glaring contradictions make us laugh.
You yourself illustrate just what I'm talking about. You changed "ridiculous" to "unworkable," but your response to ideas such as road privatization has consistently been to ridicule. Plenty of things are workable despite your ridicule. If this conversation were twenty years ago, you'd probably ridicule the idea of private postal service; today, with UPS, etc., well established, you at least recognize that the idea is workable. Ten years ago you would probably have said that government schools are absolutely necessary. With the growth of charter and home schools, you probably would admit that privatization is "workable," but possibly not. Private fire companies have been in the news recently, so you probably wouldn't dismiss them out of hand. Your resistance to each idea is roughly proportional to their prevalence today.
But roads? Private roads are practically nonexistent today, so they're "unworkable." In fact, private turnpikes were a vital part of England's infrastructure in the 18th century, and also in the US until the early-mid 19th century. There's nothing unworkable about them. What makes them seem
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 21, 2007, 03:45:10 AM
Post by: Len Budney on September 21, 2007, 03:59:56 AM
Once again illustrating your tendency to misrepresent and use straw men arguments.
My post explained itself reasonably and at length. If you wish to critique it, please repay the courtesy. A barrage of flippant replies are not enjoyable dialogue--neither for the participants nor the bystanders.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 21, 2007, 04:42:06 AM
Next you could point out any place where I even commented on privatizing roads. Once you've determined I never expressed an opinion either way about it, you could admit to that fact.
Post by: Len Budney on September 21, 2007, 04:58:14 AM
You could start by acknowledging that I never wrote you called anyone stupid. So your disclaimer is dishonest.
You said, "Americans are smart people. Never lose faith in the American people." That reply can mean nothing other than that I in some way maligned the intelligence of the American people. If you didn't mean to imply that, then I'm glad to hear it. If so, what were you trying to say? I can't tell.
Quote
Next you could point out any place where I even commented on privatizing roads.
To my knowledge, you have not specifically mentioned roads: your responses to liberty in general, and Ron Paul in particular, have been sweeping and broad. Since you seldom give specific objections, I have no choice but to select specific points myself. If you are in fact on-board with road privatization, just say so and I'll be glad to hear it. In that case, it was a f'rinstance, and not one of your specific objections--but it remains a good illustration of the way in which perfectly intelligent Americans reject the unfamiliar out of hand.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 21, 2007, 05:26:35 AM
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 05:47:06 AM
Post by: Len Budney on September 21, 2007, 06:01:56 AM
I thought you guys were both 'free market' types. Anyway the privatization of everything without some (at a minimum) legal system to protect it goes nowhere.
I agree. The question is whether the legal system can only exist under the aegis of government. There are lots of examples of law and order without government. Iceland, William Penn's colony (which functioned without government of any kind for many years), and others are out there. Other examples of spontaneous order abound as well. In Tiananmen Square, protesters for democracy, ironically, spontaneously created an orderly anarchist society for the duration of their protest.
Quote
Then you'll need an enforcement arm of the legal system, so you're back to government again.
You need enforcement, but that isn't automatically a government. For example, when you defend yourself against murder or burglary or rape, you're enforcing law, but you aren't doing it as a government agent. If your friends help you, or you pay your armed neighbor to stand guard, or hire Pinkertons, the government is not involved. Most law enforcement can be handled in precisely that way, and even is in some places.
Some things definitely can't be handled that way, but shouldn't be law enforcement issues in the first place. Drinking alcohol, as is banned today in "dry counties" in the Bible belt, or smoking marijuana for that matter, are private matters. We can forbid it on our property, but if someone wants to do those things in his own home it's his business. Private law enforcement can't be used to impose our morals on others, but that's okay because we shouldn't be doing that anyway.
There are some aspects of law enforcement that are tricky without government, but they're not impossible. For example, how does one square arresting someone for fraud with private property rights? Can random citizens invade someone's property to haul off the fraudster? That's a tricky sort of question, and it's too involved for a snappy solution in a post like this, but it is a solvable problem.
In short, it is possible to have law enforcement without government. And law enforcement is, as you say, absolutely necessary.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on September 21, 2007, 06:10:52 AM
Quote
You need enforcement, but that isn't automatically a government. For example, when you defend yourself against murder or burglary or rape, you're enforcing law, but you aren't doing it as a government agent. If your friends help you, or you pay your armed neighbor to stand guard, or hire Pinkertons, the government is not involved. Most law enforcement can be handled in precisely that way, and even is in some places.
That won't work. You'd have roving gangs of privateers extorting protection money, then you'd have gang wars and chaos. You've devolved to a tribal society.
Post by: Len Budney on September 21, 2007, 06:21:27 AM
Quote
You need enforcement, but that isn't automatically a government. For example, when you defend yourself against murder or burglary or rape, you're enforcing law, but you aren't doing it as a government agent. If your friends help you, or you pay your armed neighbor to stand guard, or hire Pinkertons, the government is not involved. Most law enforcement can be handled in precisely that way, and even is in some places.
That won't work. You'd have roving gangs of privateers extorting protection money, then you'd have gang wars and chaos. You've devolved to a tribal society.
Your objection deserves discussion (and has been discussed extensively in the past, BTW), but I'd only point out that it's jumping the gun a bit simply to assume that. Historical examples suggest otherwise, for starters. For instance, the "wild west" was in fact safer than the "civilized" east, and was quite an orderly place, despite the lack of government law enforcement. People are smart enough to know that killing is bad business, and are willing to find other means of working things out. Even the Mafia uses murder sparingly.
Would murder disappear from the earth? Of course not. But I'd point out that the biggest mass-murders in history have all been carried out by governments. Germany, Russia, China and Cambodia all come readily to mind.
--Len.
Post by: The Rabbi on September 21, 2007, 06:25:24 AM
Quote
You need enforcement, but that isn't automatically a government. For example, when you defend yourself against murder or burglary or rape, you're enforcing law, but you aren't doing it as a government agent. If your friends help you, or you pay your armed neighbor to stand guard, or hire Pinkertons, the government is not involved. Most law enforcement can be handled in precisely that way, and even is in some places.
That won't work. You'd have roving gangs of privateers extorting protection money, then you'd have gang wars and chaos. You've devolved to a tribal society.
Post by: Len Budney on September 21, 2007, 06:30:03 AM
Private enforcement of private judicial systems could easily either be swayed into partiality or fall to accusations of partiality.
Unlike government law enforcement.
--Len.