Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[angelofdeath]

thank goodness.

[CILONE/SK]

Fine go back to your 3% militia. Good luck with finding fertilizer bombs and land to isolate yourself from the real world.

[angelofdeath]

umm, i thought you were going to 'end with that.'

[CILONE/SK]

I was just wishing you good luck. If you do not want it, fine, fuck you then hahaha

[El Mamerro]

if someone has a right to the water, then the people have a right to not having pollutants dumped in the water.

 

Three quick questions:

 

-Under this scenario, who defines what is a pollutant? Who pays for the research, testing, and labeling of a substance that is a pollutant?

 

-How does a property owner become aware that his property is being polluted? Is he supposed to pay for constantly testing his water supply?

 

-Would a company allowed to offer payment or incentives towards property owners to allow the company to pollute their property (I believe I already asked this one once)?

 

 

 

 

Not looking to hear how the current system fails to do this properly or whatever, just curious what the new paradigm could be.

[angelofdeath]

Three quick questions:

 

-Under this scenario, who defines what is a pollutant? Who pays for the research, testing, and labeling of a substance that is a pollutant?

 

-How does a property owner become aware that his property is being polluted? Is he supposed to pay for constantly testing his water supply?

 

-Would a company allowed to offer payment or incentives towards property owners to allow the company to pollute their property (I believe I already asked this one once)?

 

 

 

 

Not looking to hear how the current system fails to do this properly or whatever, just curious what the new paradigm could be.

 

there is an obvious problem with municipal water supplies since they are not privately owned but held in common by everyone. this is a tragedy of the commons type scenario and the real issue with this is first and foremost, privatization. so to simplify, lets talk about a spring on someones property or a well.

 

if i own a well, it is my responsibility to determine what is in it. when you purchase a house with a well, you get a well water test and see whats going on. the government doesnt determine someones well water quality. pollutants will be determined just the way a person who buys raw milks determines what a contaminant is. individuals determine what is safe on their own. the govt tells us you cant drink raw milk and others think you can and praise its health benefits. i would imagine, most people would consider a pollutant in drinking water to be anything that is detrimental to their health. i'd much rather choose to drink spring water from a capitalist company that bottles it than drink municipal water from most cities. why? because capitalists make money on having pure water... governments incentives are backwards in providing good products to their 'customers'

 

if i am concerned about my water supply at my house, i have to pay to have it tested. i do not have government water. i have spring water. its not that outlandish. we have forensics to determine who commits murders, i see no reason why forensics cannot determine who/what is committing a trespass (pollution)

 

i guess anything is possible, but i doubt, someone would allow their spring to be polluted by a company that poisons the water. if someone else wants their water supply polluted, i guess that is their choice.

 

and im all for a gradual transition to this type of system, my main concern is to remove the govt monopoly on these types of regulations and allow companies to be liable for their actions, allow them to be sued easily, and make them personally responsible to those affected not to just pay a fine to the government.

[Zig]

Zig you drank the Kool aid. You must not realize that you can find anything on the Internet. You find a rebuttal, but it is from RP. That sort of defeats the point, since I am sure that RP is not going to say that he is wrong. That is like asking someone to explain why he wrong about something he believes fully. It just will not happen and does not make sense.

 

BTW I have looked deeply into him and I think he would be horrible for America, but good for business.

 

Do not write off what I am saying by assuming I do not know what I am talking about. You are the one who keeps bringing campaign rhetoric into this.

 

Seriously, I didn't drink the kool-aid for Ron Paul. I was a big supporter of RP in 2008, but not enough to even donate a single dollar to his campaign. About the most I did was switch over to the Republican party so that I could vote for him to be the nominee. After his failure in 2008 I never got involved in Campaign for Liberty, and if you knew me personally you could ask any of my friends that I disagreed with a lot of his rhetoric about Obama and his pure libertarian-ism during those turbulent times of the early Obama administration. The only reason I'm on here defending him in this thread is because I enjoy posting on 12oz, and I thought your original statements about him were unfair. Like ILOTS said, I am not 100% libertarian or even go as far as aod would go in some of his posts about the limits of government. But I do support RP as a presidential candidate in 2012, and I do believe in limited government and the the original and pure meaning of the constitution. I would die for those ideals, I really would. I would suffer and struggle and give up my well-being to protect what I believe is liberty. I don't agree with you that government is supposed to take care of it's people, I don't think there is any evidence to support that statement either. From my perspective, all of government's attempts to support, protect, and help it's people have failed miserably and in most cases produced the opposite effect over the long-term. That is what I genuinely believe as an independent man living on this earth, it has nothing to do with Ron Paul or his rhetoric or his campaign. I personally believe that our government is corrupt, and power corrupts, so I don't want more power for a government that is already out of control and attempting to regulate every aspect of our lives. I want a step backwards in the other direction, and RP is the ONLY candidate advocating that. That's why I support him. It isn't because I agree and hang onto every single word he says, it's because of what he represents and where his policies will lead this country.

 

Honestly, I have respect for you CILONE, even though I don't respect your manner of debating, but you stood by your guns and you took on several of us in this thread to get the point across that you disagree with RP's ideals. There is nothing wrong with that, I don't expect everyone in America to support RP and agree with him. I honestly don't even care that you came at me personally, and I don't take it personal... because at the end of the day you don't know me and I don't know you. We have vastly different opinions on what is best for the world, but for all I know you could be a chill dude in person even though your a fucking troll on the internet. I think we both have good intentions and want the best for the world, I don't think you are malevolently spinning and twisting facts... but I do think you are falling into some of the more general RP hatred that has been injected into the mainstream media and other information outlets.

 

Do you really feel that RP and his policies would destroy America? I think that's unfair to say entirely, because RP's policies for the most part have only been shortly attempted in early American history and quickly replaced with what we have today. Are you saying that the system we have today hasn't slowly eroded and destroyed this nations wealth, prosperity, freedom, and liberty? The way I see it is the complete opposite. I see the policies that have generally been known as the "status quo" in this country to be the policies that are leading us to our incremental destruction. What I see is a nation that used to be prosperous, free, intelligent, independent, and have the most liberty on the face of the planet become the most unstable, nonfunctional, corrupt, militaristic, tyrannical police state we know today. These aren't RP's policies that brought us here to this point... these are the policies and legislation of big government, regulation, federal reserve, military industrial complex, security industrial complex, big brother, big sister, nanny state, etc. etc. that have created all of these crises we face. This is a system that isn't even just American, it's globalist and instituted in nations all around the world.

 

I get it though. I really understand your view, and the views of others who have sincere and legitimate concerns for taking care of those who can't help themselves, protecting the environment, etc. I live in poor neighborhoods where I see people picking up welfare checks, EBT's, food stamps, social security, planned parenthood... I understand the necessity to HELP. I also understand RP's perspective though, and I don't see it as you describe... "caring only about yourself". I see it as being self-sufficient, being responsible, being independent. When you can help yourself, you can help others, you can help your surroundings, and you can protect them too. Relying on government to do this, in MY OPINION, is NOT helping. We are creating a society that is DEPENDENT, and we are losing all of our self-sufficiency... expecting government to be there to take care of us when we make mistakes, when we are irresponsible, when we do DUMB things. From the experiences of history, we should understand that government can not take care of us and should not be expected to take care of us, or police the world, or protect us from the boogey-men. I also feel that government takes advantage of this, and instead of creating legislation that would enable us as a society to be more self-sufficient, they irresponsibly and lazily encourage us to be dependent on them. All it leads to is special interests taking advantage of us, using us as guinea pigs for social experiments, treating us like cattle, enslaving us to their "benevolent systems of care".

 

That's the way I feel, that is honest and genuine straight from the heart because I have no regrets about posting my own thoughts and my own ideas here on this forum. It isn't campaign rhetoric at all, it's WHY I support RP for president, regardless of whether or not I agree with him 100% on every single issue. I can sit here and guarantee you that even IF he was elected president, that I WOULDN'T be happy with a RP presidency either.

[LIVERWURST*]

I haven't been here in years but watching Paul and the other less main stream candidates get snubbed during the Republican debates made me sick and made me nostalgic for Ch0. In true Fox fashion it was pretty much a reality show about Minnesotan politics with a few of the typical Republicans getting a small segment of time to try to make strong blurb statements that will carry into the weeks pundit shows and blogs. Debates are a sham anyway, but I was surprised not to see a conversation here especially because all I wanted to see was Paul, Cain and Gingrich but only Gingrich got attention of the 3 because he went full force. Anything from the debate you felt good about Paul fans?

[screaming hand logo]

jon stewart had a good bit on how fox news wouldn't even mention his name after the iowa straw pull or whatever. worth watching.

[christo-f]

Since returning to my own country and finding it turning in to a ridiculous nanny state where politicians and lobby groups want to save us from everything (seriously, the Health Professional Association is trying to have happy hour banned. They are banning happiness....), I can certainly see the value in the argument of over-regulation and allowing people to live their own lives. After living in China for way too long I can also see the value of competition and the benefits of a strong market based economy where rationality is the decider.

 

That being said Ron Paul is a fruit loop and left to his own devices he would destroy the USA with his ideas on foreign policy alone.

 

Even 65% of the living standards that the US enjoys requires the US to be interconnected with the rest of the world in economic behaviour alone. Were economic activity exists so must military power or some one gonna come along and take your economic from you. It is painfully clear to me that RP simply doesn't understand the threats in the world and how geopolitics works. The argument 'if we just left people alone they'd leave us alone' is so naive it's astounding. If that were the case there would be no war in history, everyone would just be leaving each other alone.

 

History quite clearly shows that there are many reasons for aggression, irrationality, mistrust, fear, resource security, greed, prestige/ego, etc. A leader is responsible for protecting the nation. For a leader to think that isolationism or even passive engagement is a form of defense is to open your nation to massive risk and to be irresponsible.

 

I think Ron Paul the Messiah would be an irresponsible president based on his foreign policy alone.

[christo-f]

This is hardly a reasonable comparison to make. Paul advocates non-interventionism, not isolationism as China did in the era you speak of. As I'm sure you know, the Chinese state considered itself the centre of the civilised universe and grossly underestimated the the power of these western barbarians who were skirmishing on the coastline trying to secure port space and trade networks. By comparison, Paul is pro free-trade, which eliminates much of the source of this conflict to begin with.

There was so much more to the conflict between the European powers, the US and Japan and the Chinese nation. Trading rights was barely even it, to be completely accurate. Imperialism and colonialism based on access to resources along with security concerns were at the heart of conflict in China. Even if China was trading with the British the Japanese would have attacked, for starters.

 

Secondly, trade interests have increased international war, not reduced it. Two countries who's resource supply and markets have little relation to each other have less chance of going to war as they are less of a potential threat to each other. It doesn't mean they won't go to war, just that there is one less point of friction or fear that can spark conflict.

 

 

You often accuse people of sounding like chicken little, I think you have now demonstrated a propensity to the same behaviour. This line of argument would suggest that no other nations bar the US and perhaps some of their allies benefit from trade. This idea is patently untrue.

What?! I think you misunderstand me. It's not that aggressive powers will block all trade, they will block the weaker naval power in order to gain concessions out of them (whether that be cheap access to their resources, fee access to their market, tribute, whatever). I mean there are ample historical examples of this that one can point to but the two world wars are the easiest places to start in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.

 

However, focussing purely on the cost to US citizens, even if transport became more expensive in absence of US gov naval protection, this increased cost would be offset by the dramatic decrease in government spending paid for through taxation.

I simply don't understand your reasoning here. it's not that the transport would become more expensive it's that it could become non-existent.

 

It is one of the great fallacies of a statist position that looks at the current role of state actions and argues without any particular gov institution there would be chaos and disorder. There is very little that a government can do that can't be replicated by private action in a more efficient way. Wholesale theft and oppression of a citizenry may be one exception, leading an entire nation to war may be another.

If a nation were to have a private military establishment other nations wouldn't even have to fight against it to conquer their territory. They'd just have to pay it 5% more and tell it to turn on its own people.

 

Under your paradigm of market principals it would be irrational for a military not to turn on its own people when offered more money. That means you'd have to ally with a number of other nations in order to balance against the richest nation.

 

Or you could just trust in their good nature and hope for the best......

[christo-f]

This statement is disingenuous. What R. Paul is talking about is reducing motivation towards negative engagement. Quite obviously there are many reasons why a nation or political organisation may negatively engage with another, the consequences of interventionism and blow-back are just two forms of these which exists within a spectrum of others. Yet, if blow-back is identified as a concept with explanatory power factoring in several major cases of negative engagement since the terms conception, surely it is a reasonable response to attempt to neutralise this motivation to warfare or other manoeuvring.

 

So if we can move past such simplistic and misleading arguments which present a binary outcome of either non-interventionism preventing war or not, we can see that the real argument is if non-interventionism reduces the frequency or severity of war or other negative engagement. The most obvious way to answer this question would be to look backwards to find historical comparisons. Yet all of the historical examples you have mentioned have been much more an issue of the relative power between nations/political units than interventionism or non-interventionism. Indigenous Australia could have hardly lead a forward deployment policy preventing British conquest, for example.

 

And that is exactly the point. Indigenous Australia was non-interventionist but it made ZERO difference to their fate. What did make a difference was the power balance and their occupation of fertile land and fresh water sources. The English didn't give a shit whether the Abos were interventionist or not, they made their decision on opportunity and possibility of victory. Seriously, nations do NOT form foreign policy along moral lines such as "well they never did anything wrong to us, we really shouldn't fuck with them".

 

Nations can and do take advantage if it is in the interests of a leading administration. The US is perfect proof of that and so is any other imperialist or colonialist nation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

See y'all in another few months for my next post.

[angelofdeath]

Under your paradigm of market principals it would be irrational for a military not to turn on its own people when offered more money. That means you'd have to ally with a number of other nations in order to balance against the richest nation.

 

or the people could just vote in a tyrant like they always do and then this guy then turns the military against their own people.

 

its rather simplistic to say what you just said though. if this were the case, insurance companies would just not pay for peoples doctors visits, break current contracts with their customers, and only pay for the doctors visits who pays the insurance company 1 penny more.

 

and it also negates the fact that the largest part of a 'private' defense force, is the people its self. the militia in some capacity or form. it starts at home by being armed and extrapolates from there. but i see no need to actually discuss alternatives to a standing govt military or even assistance forces on a private level because RP is not an anarcho capitalist nor is advocating privatizing the military

[CILONE/SK]

Hey AOD, I found a place for you to live in your own private lalala land

 

lalala land of delusional retards

[angelofdeath]

i was hoping you died, but guess im not that lucky.

 

to bad, your 'island' and private 'lala land' thing could never work though, because the US will not let you renounce your citizenship unless you claim citizenship in another country. nice try though

[CILONE/SK]

I was hoping you went to a real libertarian country, with a free market, no taxes, no gun laws, everything you have ever wanted you unamerican piece of shit.

 

BTW, that country is Somalia.

[angelofdeath]

dude, you have to be the biggest idiot i have ever seen on here. you literally waited... what 2 weeks to post on here until you see one of my posts pop to the top? what a clown

[CILONE/SK]

Not really, I just read that article this morning and thought of your delusional theories. The article was only released 2 hours ago. So, stop thinking so much of your self and go back to building your fertilizer bombs and being a homegrown wannabee terrorist.

BTW, how come you hate everything that America is, and yet you still call yourself a patriot?? hypocrite.

[Decyferon]

I think an experiment like that island would be quite interesting to see, but I would imagine you would have to be remarkably Rich to live there and I can see the spin on low crime rates as basically they are so rich they don't need to go out stealing.

[CILONE/SK]

But, what about pirates? What would stop it from being overrun with people who want to kidnap the rich people? If the answer is guns, then what would stop this from becoming a self imposed prison when they are constantly on guard from people trying to get at them?

[Decyferon]

They would need to pay someone to defend their borders, or volunteer themselves, because if they don't have a military they would be pretty fucked.

 

Definitely doesn't seem the sort of place for poor people

[angelofdeath]

Not really, I just read that article this morning and thought of your delusional theories. The article was only released 2 hours ago. So, stop thinking so much of your self and go back to building your fertilizer bombs and being a homegrown wannabee terrorist.

BTW, how come you hate everything that America is, and yet you still call yourself a patriot?? hypocrite.

 

for being so confrontational on message boards debating politics, you dont really have any grasp on what some of your arguments actually mean.

 

a patriot is one who is devoted to ones people and place. a nationalist is one who is undyingly devoted to its government. your mistake is thinking that a patriot is one that defends their governments actions no matter what. if this were the case, the 'patriots' of the american revolution, would in fact be 'home grown terrorists making fertilizer bombs' or whatever other dumb comments you are trying to come up with at the time. but i dont seem to ever recall referring to myself as a 'patriot.'

[angelofdeath]

no further proof needed to classify this guy as a clown:

 

props: 07-13-2011 02:08 PM CILONE/SK For no neg props since we have argued in a few threads

 

negaprops: 08-16-2011 11:19 AM CILONE/SK fuck you and your anti-american theories

 

 

hahahhahaaha

[CILONE/SK]

your mistake is thinking that a patriot is one that defends their governments actions no matter what.

 

Never said that or implied that. You are wrong again, like so many other times. You really like to assume alot about what people say and mean.

[angelofdeath]

They would need to pay someone to defend their borders, or volunteer themselves, because if they don't have a military they would be pretty fucked.

 

Definitely doesn't seem the sort of place for poor people

 

i think the whole thing could be written off as totally infeasible because govts would certainly find a way to crush this the moment it was attempted. they like their cattle on the ranch.

 

there have been some attempts to do things involving 'sea steading' type things like having gambling operations just outside of the jurisdiction of various governments. didnt last long from what i remember

[CILONE/SK]

no further proof needed to classify this guy as a clown:

 

props: 07-13-2011 02:08 PM CILONE/SK For no neg props since we have argued in a few threads

 

negaprops: 08-16-2011 11:19 AM CILONE/SK fuck you and your anti-american theories

 

 

hahahhahaaha

 

 

You have nothing, do you?

 

From your austrian bullshit, that is not based on any type of actual system to your pro-guns bullshit, that is only valid when you are living a solitary life, just like you are. Everything you say is based on unrealistic nonsense.

[angelofdeath]

dude, i've argued with you and refuted everything you have ever written and now you are saying i 'have nothing?' cmon.

 

you have some serious problems... your propping/negapropping is very illustrative of this.

[CILONE/SK]

Most of what you have said has been based on other libertarians like your self. When it all comes down to it, there is zero substance to anything you have said. It has ALL been unproven theories that will tear apart this country if put into place.

 

BTW, the time I gave you props, was based on you never giving me Negs no matter how much we argued, nothing else. But you wishing me to die is a whole other thing. For that, I will call you out and tell you to go fuck yourself.

[angelofdeath]

Most of what you have said has been based on other libertarians like your self. When it all comes down to it, there is zero substance to anything you have said. It has ALL been unproven theories that will tear apart this country if put into place.

 

BTW, the time I gave you props, was based on you never giving me Negs no matter how much we argued, nothing else. But you wishing me to die is a whole other thing. For that, I will call you out and tell you to go fuck yourself.

 

so wait, your repackaged rachel maddow transcripts are fine and dandy, have substance, and are all 'good' but if i express an ideology you disagree with it has no 'substance?' cmon man. just cmon.

 

the liberal BS you espouse is the very thing that HAS 'torn this country apart.'

 

i like a conversation with a lefty, such as decyferon who actually will formulate his argument, debate it and not resort to childish antics and the actions of the typical forum troll such as yourself.

[CILONE/SK]

You keep trying to label people to fit your stereotypes to let you easily dismiss people with your libertarian playbook. To bad, I can not tell you one thing about rachel whoever, I do not watch tv.

 

I have no problem discussing your rhetoric, but for you to continually deny facts is pointless to everyone.

 

Tell me one country even close to the size of the US that has successfully implemented your bullshit theories and we will have a discussion, but until that happens or you admit, you do not know everything and can possibly be wrong, you are full of shit.

 

The reason there has NEVER been a country that in the history of mankind has implemented your bullshit theories, is because it does not work for anyone except for the wealthy.

 

If is is the best way forward for this world, why has it never been used before??????