Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[Zig]

thank you crooked good post i'll respond to that later today

[Zig]

I'm not going to go point by point, however, I will speak to some specific rhetorical problems that I find in writing like this.

 

1. The use of the word "freedom." What does freedom mean? This is a regularly used word in libertarian and "constitutionalist" arguments against those they consider "anti-freedom." There is never any qualification or working definition of what that word means. It is used to suggest that someone's general position is antithetical to a widely held yet ill defined belief. It is a smoke screen and it immediately causes me to believe that this person has little actual backing to their views other than talking points and rhetorical devices.

 

It's true that the word freedom gets thrown around by every politician through his/her rhetoric to support their political platform. One person's idea of freedom is another person's idea of tyranny. Such is the case with George W. Bush calling the mission in Iraq; Operation Iraqi Freedom. In my view, it's quite the opposite. I think throughout our history we've been bombarded with propaganda and deceitful rhetoric that is isn't difficult to understand why someone would be skeptical to hear Ron Paul's message and believe otherwise. I also don't think our generation, or even generations from decades previous to us, have had a taste of what American freedom truly is and can be, so we are out of touch with what is possible in a truly free American society.

 

With that said, there are points however that can be accredited to Ron Paul's policies which will bring at least MORE "freedom" to the American people, even if you may disagree on what the meaning of "freedom" is. I believe freedom can be defined by what liberties an individual has in society. For example; Ron Paul would end the federal drug war... allowing independent citizens to make their own choices on recreational drugs as well as allowing patients to have access to drugs they need such as medical marijuana. Currently there is no choice, there is no liberty on this matter. The government has decided that this is the case and the citizen has no say in the matter, even if the state itself has ruled otherwise over the situation. That is not liberty and freedom, that is dictation. The drug war is a prime example of this dictation, but it stretched across a wide expanse of other policies by federal government dictating to the state and to the independent citizens of this country what is and isn't possible in a "free" society.

 

Freedom can also be defined, and I believe most importantly, economically. Ron Paul is literally the only candidate who speaks about the Federal Reserve's unconstitutional monopoly over our economy. He is the only candidate criticizing the fractional-reserve central banking system that is in place not only in this country but all over the world. Our globalist economy isn't controlled or properly regulated by congress, therefore it does not belong to the people, and leaves American citizens and citizens all over the world susceptible to corruption and special interests. This much is apparent by just watching the news on a regular basis and paying attention to the current crises we are in, with recessions, stock slumps, no jobs created, bail-outs, etc. Other presidential candidates answers to these problems are to give the Fed even more control and power over our economic system, which in my opinion enslaves us even further, where as Ron Paul's answer is to dismantle that system, destroy the Federal Reserve's monopoly, and restore sound money. This could most definitely lead to the people having more control over their own economic policies, and their own economy rather than a federal bureaucratic arm of the government (which is actually private and NOT part of the government) running the show for us.

 

Freedom demands responsibility, and unfortunately over time we've passed the buck of responsibility to government in order for them to handle our problems for us. This has lead to dictation over many issues, and we simply do not have choices over many of these matters. Liberty is defined by having choices that the individual can decide upon for themselves, rather than the government and bureaucratic making that decision for them.

 

2. " Today, negotiations over legislation tend to occur between those who want a 100 percent increase in federal spending and those who want a 50 percent increase. Their compromise is a 75 percent increase. With a president serious about following the Constitution, backed by a substantial block of sympathetic representatives in Congress, negotiations on outlays would be between those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright — thus a compromise would be a 50 percent decrease in spending!"

 

This says literally nothing. Where do these numbers come from? What budgets are they referencing? What senators and congresspeople are pushing these specific numbers? I probably don't need to keep asking questions.

 

Actually, it says a lot about Washington in general. What it's referring to is that there are no real opposing sides on legislation. I believe he is taking a shot at the left-right paradigm of this country. For example, in Washington a spending bill will be contested between the Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats want to be liberal about the legislation and throw all the money they can at it, believing that the end result will pay off for the country in general. The Republicans want to be conservative about the legislation and not spend anything at all. In the end there is usually a compromise between the two parties and the bill is passed with around 50-75% of the funding it needed. This scenario can be applied to all types of legislation in Washington, not just funding. Most of the time the middle road is taken between the two parties, regardless of the disagreements on the legislation, both parties sacrifice principles to forward the legislation for "the good" of the country. All he is saying is that underneath a Ron Paul presidency, the debate would be clearly defined with opposing sides; "Those who want to keep funding the government programs and those who want to eliminate them outright".

 

I could go on about how the left-right paradigm in this country has led to a perpetual movement towards bigger, more tyrannical, more centrally focused government dictatorship over time but I won't bother you with that lecture.

 

3. "For example, today manufacturers of dietary supplements are subject to prosecution by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they make even truthful statements about the health benefits of their products without going through the costly and time-consuming procedures required to gain government approval for their claims. A president can put an end to this simply by ordering the FDA and FTC not to pursue these types of cases unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer's clams are not true"

 

This is where you and I will simply disagree ideologically. I do not believe markets will regulate themselves in the interest of the people. Plain and simple.

 

That's fine, I respect that. However, you should at least be able to admit that federal regulation at times also causes conflict and issues for the consumer such as in the scenario Ron Paul provided above. I don't entirely disagree with you on the markets regulating themselves, but I do agree with Ron Paul that federal regulation often times causes more problems than it fixes.

 

4. I have no real issues with the idea of states rights, except that many states put in place legislation that actually impedes the rights of individuals as protected by the bill of rights itself. This is also another point where we will likely disagree; I do not believe that the general public is good at deciding policy, let alone having emergent policy like behaviors. Referendums are poor policy, look at CA for this. Some things work out well, most do not. We have a representative democracy for a reason, because the tyranny of the majority is no less tyrannical than from the despotic rule of a federal government or whatever sovereign boogie man you'd like to put forth. Also, I remember the history of the Articles of Confederation.

 

I agree with you, it's a good point. However having the liberty to choose is better than being dictated to by a despotic federal government which you have no power over. At least with a local state government, the power can be contested by the people. This doesn't mean there wouldn't still be despotic and corrupt states in America, but the people would have a choice as to whether or not they would like to live in that state. I would assume states with more freedom and liberties would be popular over states with more tyranny and despotism. These are free-market principles, this is liberty... having the ability to choose rather than having a federal government dictating to us what the policies are for the entire country.

 

5. "a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution's division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change."

 

Logically, this does not work. If the president has the power to annul an executive order, they had the power to put it in place initially. Duality and dichotomies work this way.

 

6. "is would dramatically reduce the number of federal officials wasting our money and taking our liberties."

 

Again with the ill defined concepts...

 

7. "Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security."

 

Ideological difference. I do not believe that the essential responsibility of government is simply "border security." In most cases this is a veiled argument against brown people. The rhetoric in this argument of "illegals," "aliens," "undocumenteds," etc is a way of dehumanizing people such that we see it acceptable to treat them as commodity. I don't really care to jump down ideological rabbit holes with you, to be honest. So I'm just going to point out where they stand as differences for the rest of this critique.

 

No I agree with you, and I'm not a big fan of the whole illegal alien arguments either. I tend to avoid this argument and I actually disagree with Ron Paul and people like Alex Jones about illegal aliens and how they shouldn't receive amnesty, and all the hype about pro-american products and buying american yadda yadda.etc. I think it's a bit bigoted to be honest, and I can admit to that. My brother in law was an illegal alien until he married my sister, lot's of his family are illegals and I love them, they do a lot for our community and they are part of the American society so... I really don't disagree with you on this issue. I do however understand how illegals are used by government and special interests to drag our society down with their own failing economies and corrupt government's. Our enemies are their enemies, and we all need to understand that. That's about as much as I can say on that topic without delving into "conspiracy theories".

 

8. Another ill defined concept in these discussions is often over "entitlement programs." What does this mean? Are federal funds spent on maintaining roadways and highways an entitlement? I would suggest that they are. The quick response back would be, "oh privatizing roadways would handle that governmental department, blah blah blah." I don't believe that privatization is an essential and viable idea for maintaining the public good through unregulated markets. Profit is not something which speaks to human rights. I think it's pretty easy to look at the history of industrialization and development of workers' rights as an example of this.

 

9. "Instead, the president should order agencies to refocus on the legitimate responsibilities of the federal government, such as border security."

 

Come the fuck on. Honestly, abolishing the department of education? I'm not speaking to education policy, because, like all policy it can be evaluated and revised. But again, the idea that privatization will allow for more range in pedagogy is absurd. I went to public schools, I am about to go into my first year of graduate school. Some of the best and most influential people in my academic life were in my public schools. Discussing the failure of standardized testing and where one might shift funds is a very different conversation. But cutting spending in education per capita on children is shown regularly to negatively effect communities and future stability in the middle class. This is goddamn ridiculous.

 

A great example of this is Rick Perry, bastion of absurdity. This last year, nearly 50,000 teaching positions were eliminated in Texas. There were HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS of testimony FROM THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE, begging the state not to do this. From teachers, to most importantly STUDENTS AND TEACHERS. If your claim is that accountability in schools should be to parents, then here was your opportunity to show support to the community and dip into your rainy day fund to shore up the budget shortfalls that you hid in a 2 year state budget agreement. I'm sorry but this is one of the most asinine ideas that "constitutional libertarians" have. It makes me fucking incensed and I would fucking dare any of you to actually spend a fair amount of time working with educators and educational policy experts to discuss the ramifications of moving to voucher systems, etc.

 

I'll just refer you to this book, which could enlighten you as to why federalizing our education system is a mistake.

 

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/

 

Author

Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa. Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America's Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.

 

I'm not saying I agree with everything in this book, or that this book reflects my own ideas and perspectives... but I'm not going to respond to you when these concepts have been thoroughly written and elaborated on by many authors as to why federalizing our education has had negative impacts on our actual intelligence in this country. If you'd like to respond to points made in the book, or many other books about our federally funded education system you can do that, but it seems to me here like you are asking questions that have already been answered and ignoring lots of statistical data and analyses.

 

10. "The Founders obviously did not intend for the president to have much influence over the nation's money — in fact, they never intended any part of the federal government to operate monetary policy as it defined now."

 

The founders existed in a time before relativity, the internet, and global culture. An appeal to their authority is missing the big picture at best, and irresponsible at worst.

 

That actually makes no difference in relation to the quote, because the three things you mentioned have no effect on what our monetary policy was defined as in the constitution, and what it is today. The Founding Father's understood what tyranny was, and they created a brilliant system of check & balances to protect us from that tyranny. I don't believe he is appealing to their authority because they have none in modern times, he is appealing to the authority of the constitution which is still the law of the land.

 

11. "For that reason, the work of Young Americans for Liberty in introducing young people to the freedom philosophy and getting them involved in the freedom movement is vital to the future of our country."

 

May I ask what the point of an educated and politically active population is if the goal is to reduce governent overall?

 

That is a ridiculous question to ask. You're making it seem as if reducing government means getting rid of government. Libertarian-ism is not Anarchy. There will ALWAYS be a need for an educated and politically active population, especially if we are granted more liberty in this country because it demands responsibility.

 

And lastly, why do you people (yes I said you people) believe that states are any better? As I mentioned before, tyranny is a scalable concept. Local policy can be just as asinine and devastating as federal.

 

I already answered this above:

 

I agree with you, it's a good point. However having the liberty to choose is better than being dictated to by a despotic federal government which you have no power over. At least with a local state government, the power can be contested by the people. This doesn't mean there wouldn't still be despotic and corrupt states in America, but the people would have a choice as to whether or not they would like to live in that state. I would assume states with more freedom and liberties would be popular over states with more tyranny and despotism. These are free-market principles, this is liberty... having the ability to choose rather than having a federal government dictating to us what the policies are for the entire country.

 

Very very lastly, the idea of freedom typically espoused by libertarians is ones which follows in line with the state of nature as proposed by french philosophers who wrote on democracy. Freedom, in these cases, is divine in nature. I don't believe in a deity, nor do I believe in theocratic basis for establishing the rights of people. Before you get your panties in a twist, this isn't to say I don't believe in freedom, but I don't believe in your use and history of the word "freedom."

 

That's fine, but you don't have to believe in a deity. Do you believe you were born in unalienable rights that can't be infringed upon by any government or outside source? Or do you believe your rights are given to you? Please explain.

 

I suppose I went point by point. And I am going to tell you my background in politics and policy for disclosure; My mother holds a masters in public administration and environmental policy and my stepdad has a PhD in political science. They have had a policy consulting business for many years. I have done data analysis for their educational program evaluations and have further worked with local chambers of commerce to evaluate diversity distribution in local corporate boards of directorates. I'm not speaking out of my ass, I have been politically involved and informed for the entirety of my cognizant life. I have studies analytic and political philosophy in undergrad and am now pursuing a masters in Public Policy which I hope to parlay into a PhD in the same field.

 

Oh, so I suppose since I don't have that kind of experience I'M speaking out my ass? I hope this isn't another effort on this forum of thumbing your nose down at me because of your credentials. This seems to be the case around here. I don't need PHD's or masters or my mommy and daddy to be involved in government to form my own opinions and perspectives. I'm a guy from Brooklyn, NYC who has lived in the ghetto most of my life, I have a G.E.D and never graduated high-school, I go to a community fucking college and I have a pretty shitty job. I don't give a mother fuck. If I can sit here and have educated discussions with people like you, I think I've done a pretty good job educating my fucking self.

 

p.s. - There are ideals which fit into a progressive leger of political wants which are shared by libertarians. I have never and will never dispute this. What bothers me most about the libertarian view is the oft vacuous nature of the argument and why the ideals exist. Cutting spending on military and warfare? Awesome, go for it. Ending the ability to hide money from corporate taxes? fuckin go for it. But other than that, most of the historical basis of the contemporary libertarian perspective is just simply dumb to me.

 

And that's why I mostly don't speak in this thread; there are very very deep divisions between why I think the things I do, and the way you do. Those divisions are best born out through face to face discourse where humanity can remain in rhetoric.

 

Honestly, thank you for replying it's good to see that you aren't a brick wall and you actually put effort into it. Thanks for that, props.

[the.crooked]

Specifically to the last point about credentials. I wasn't saying that to be a dick, just to honestly let you know my background.

 

Appeals to authority happen all the time in these arguments and often people are criticized for having no background in it, so i wanted to stem those sorts of retorts right out. That's all. No disrespect meant.

 

"That's fine, but you don't have to believe in a deity. Do you believe you were born in unalienable rights that can't be infringed upon by any government or outside source? Or do you believe your rights are given to you? Please explain. "

 

I don't believe they are unalienable, nor do I believe they were given to me. I believe they are an agreement between people who set up our government to say this is what we believe we are going to protect.

[the.crooked]

"That actually makes no difference in relation to the quote, because the three things you mentioned have no effect on what our monetary policy was defined as in the constitution, and what it is today. The Founding Father's understood what tyranny was, and they created a brilliant system of check & balances to protect us from that tyranny. I don't believe he is appealing to their authority because they have none in modern times, he is appealing to the authority of the constitution which is still the law of the land."

 

I was pointing this out because this is a common argumentative move. Perhaps we had slightly different goals in mind with me responding. I see many of the same rhetorical moves that are usually craptastic, this happens to be one of them.

 

Regarding monetary policy, I will tender I do not know enough about it to speak adequately on it.

[Decyferon]

Zig, I think it has been mentioned plenty of times before but there are no such things as natural rights, you are not born with a god given right to anything, it is because you live in America that your thoughts are on these rights because you don't need to worry about things like not being butchered by a rival clan, or needing to find clean water so you don't die. You don't have a right to these things you are lucky that you don't need to worry about things like clean water.

 

Also, the point you made about drug companies having to get the approvals for drugs, that is a good thing, to just let them release things on the market with no approval is crazy.

[Zig]

Zig, I think it has been mentioned plenty of times before but there are no such things as natural rights, you are not born with a god given right to anything, it is because you live in America that your thoughts are on these rights because you don't need to worry about things like not being butchered by a rival clan, or needing to find clean water so you don't die. You don't have a right to these things you are lucky that you don't need to worry about things like clean water.

 

Also, the point you made about drug companies having to get the approvals for drugs, that is a good thing, to just let them release things on the market with no approval is crazy.

 

Sure I understand that in other situations around the world these rights are non-existent and the reality is that there is no equality. I also understand crooked's point of view, where he doesn't believe in a deity so he doesn't believe that these rights are inalienable, just agreed upon to be protected. The question I have is do you believe these rights ought to be protected and do you believe citizens around the world ought to have universal access to these rights? Should justice enforce these rights? If you can agree that these rights should be universal and all human-beings should have access to them and that they should be protected, than you are in agreement with the founding fathers and the constitution of america. If you are in disagreement with this philosophy than please explain yourself. This is not just directed at you decy, it's directed at anyone.

[Zig]

WHEN in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to desolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

 

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

 

Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.

 

///

[Zig]

If your philosophy rejects the notion that human-beings have a natural right to property, liberty, and happiness than please explain your philosophy.

[Decyferon]

What rights do you mean though? I don't believe in any kind of natural rights, I know we have developed these ideas as a society over time but do I believe they are god given, no. We are essentially animals the strong survive and the weak don't. We get caught up so much in freedom this blah blah when the only reason we think we have a right to this stuff is because we have been blessed to live in a western country and a democracy.

 

But looking at what we are discussing I would like to know what rights you mean, I don't believe you have a right to own a gun, I agree you can defend yourself but I don't see gun ownership as a right, however I believe everyone should have access to medical care but again that isnt a god given right but it is a hell of a lot more civilised than everyone owning a gun!

 

The thing is I dont recognise the constitution as anything more than a piece of paper, Im not american it has zero meaning to me and what it says has no importance to me either in as much as laws in other countries aren't applicable to me as I don't live there. I am not saying it isn't an important document, it clearly is, just not to me. If it said in the constitution that everyone has the right to free healthcare to be provided through tax on income then would everyone be so up in arms about the US now trying to provide healthcare? Or what if it said in there you don't have the right to arm yourself to the teeth? Does that mean your right have been violated? No because essentially you dont have the right to either.

 

Rights and freedom are given to you by the people in power or the strongest. This is why I say there are no natural rights, your freedoms are given to you by the powers that be, they are the ones allowing you to have free speech, to own weapons. nothing more than that really.

 

So are my rights being violated because I don't own a property, I would like to just cant afford it. Are my rights violated because I am not happy?

[Zig]

What rights do you mean though? I don't believe in any kind of natural rights, I know we have developed these ideas as a society over time but do I believe they are god given, no. We are essentially animals the strong survive and the weak don't. We get caught up so much in freedom this blah blah when the only reason we think we have a right to this stuff is because we have been blessed to live in a western country and a democracy.

 

These are old ideas you're speaking of Decy. They are also contradictory to the arguments I constantly see you making here. How are you on one side of the argument, going to support social government welfare, and than on another end say something like "the strong survive and the weak don't". That makes no sense to me.

 

I also disagree that we only have these rights because we have been "blessed" to live in a western country and a democracy. No, this is not true whatsoever. Government does not bless upon the people inalienable rights. I do not believe we receive our rights from government, no matter the realities of modern times, the philosophy is what I'm speaking of. The philosophy of the founding fathers who created and established these fundamental American morals that sparked revolution in the world and lead to a new era of freedom and prosperity for generations. The philosophy you speak of is the ancient philosophy of tyranny and oppression.

 

But looking at what we are discussing I would like to know what rights you mean, I don't believe you have a right to own a gun, I agree you can defend yourself but I don't see gun ownership as a right, however I believe everyone should have access to medical care but again that isnt a god given right but it is a hell of a lot more civilised than everyone owning a gun!

 

The thing is I dont recognise the constitution as anything more than a piece of paper, Im not american it has zero meaning to me and what it says has no importance to me either in as much as laws in other countries aren't applicable to me as I don't live there. I am not saying it isn't an important document, it clearly is, just not to me. If it said in the constitution that everyone has the right to free healthcare to be provided through tax on income then would everyone be so up in arms about the US now trying to provide healthcare? Or what if it said in there you don't have the right to arm yourself to the teeth? Does that mean your right have been violated? No because essentially you dont have the right to either.

 

Rights and freedom are given to you by the people in power or the strongest. This is why I say there are no natural rights, your freedoms are given to you by the powers that be, they are the ones allowing you to have free speech, to own weapons. nothing more than that really.

 

So are my rights being violated because I don't own a property, I would like to just cant afford it. Are my rights violated because I am not happy?

 

I take such issue with your statements here. You're contradicting the entire meaning behind the American revolution by saying what you're saying, the constitution is just a piece of paper. You're ignoring history when you say Rights and Freedom is GIVEN to us by the people in power. I'm sorry, but you have a very clear misunderstanding of American values.

 

///

[Decyferon]

But I am not talking about American values, if a right is inalienable then it is there for everyone not just americans.

 

I argue for social programmes like healthcare and welfare becaus eI believe it is the responsibility of the people in power to provide for the people they represent (and I dont mean supplying flat screen tvs and shit like that I mean basic healthcare provisions). The natural order of the world is that the strong survive, however as a race we have decided that we are social beings and in the civilised world you look out for the poor and help the needy, but that is not the way the world actually works. The strong survive, evolution shows that you adapt and survive or you don't. We have chosen to build a society that works differently to the natural order.

 

I do understand what you are saying Zig, I really do, it just isn't what I believe. Say China decided it wanted to take over America and it managed to invade, get rid of the government and they then held the power. If they decide that you don't have freedom to say what you want, or they say you aren't allowed to wear blue tshirts and they make that law then that is the rule of the land, now I am not saying you wouldnt be able to say what you want but you would be punished for it. Is that right? no, but also it is their house they have the power they make the rules, and yes you can rebel against that.

 

You have the ability to do what you want, if you want to call it your right then that is fine, however I do see it a right, just as much as a zebra doesn't have the right to not be eaten by the lion, he just best try hard to not get caught.

 

Basically my view is that I am lucky to live in a country where I can go to the doctor, get educated, get a job and eat. I would strive for those things no matter where I was but I don't have a right to them. We are an insignificant spec in an infinate universe, we are owed nothing by anyone really all we have is the ability to survive, we dont have the right to it,, we have to work at it. Some of us are just very lucky to live places like the UK or America.

 

The reason I say that about the constitution is that it was just written by men, it doesn't have any authority in the natural order of the world it is a social contract not a list of rights that every single person (because it does say everyone is equal) has.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

That's why the Constitution is so important, and needs to be upheld.

 

Freedom at least what we are talking about here if brand new to our society, if you look throughout history very few people have had it, and we had it for a little while and now we are tossing those rights away.

 

You can say those are "American values" but people wrote about them, and tried to obtain those values many years before the Founding Fathers we're even born. The fact that they we're even able to obtain this dream for a little while is so profound, and is a real shame that people do not value this today, especially Americans.

 

I do for one believe that all men should have these rights and are born with them. However they are taken away by the authority they face. That's what needs to be changed.

[Decyferon]

I suppose it comes down to definition of it. I of course believe we should be able to say what we want, make our own choices and all of those things we associate with freedom. We have as a society (and the consitution) made a social contract that we should abide by. This is why I am for the uprising in Libya, Syria etc because those people were being held in tyranny, now if I compare that to American society I would hardly say a few regulations etc is tyranny.

 

I know you can argue that the slightest infraction would be deemed as tyranny, however I am a realist, nothing is black and white. I m not against us having free speech or your right to own a gun or any of that, if you look at it black and white then White is completely free with no governments getting involved in your life at all and black being a libya style dictatorship then I think we need some grey, this is why I am for government healthcare and regulation of business.

 

People know my view I dont want business running rampant destroying the planet, monopolising and exploiting the consumer and I also dont want a totalitarian regime running things. I can accept some government intervention for healthcare and welfare therefore I submit to my taxes being taken. Nothing is perfect I just prefer the way it is now to other options currently being used around the world.

[Zig]

Debunking Ron Paul Racism Myths

http://libertyidaho.tumblr.com/post/9904895345

 

Ron Paul is Racist!

Here, I’ll take the most common reasons some young people (mostly democrats) don’t like Ron Paul and argue against them.

 

Ron Paul doesn’t believe in a separation of church and state.

 

Ron Paul believes the government shouldn’t be interfering in people’s personal lives. They shouldn’t be telling people what they can put in their bodies, what they can eat, who they marry, or what they say. He also believes, however, that government shouldn’t be interfering with people’s religious lives as well. He believes the Federal Government “shall write no laws” when it comes to religion.

 

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of our constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

 

Many young people take this quote and imply he believes government and religion should be intertwined. This isn’t the case at all. Ron Paul believes in the right for all religious groups to display there religion without state interference. He recently fought for the religious freedom of Muslims. Here is a quote about it.

 

The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative’s aggressive wars.

 

Ron Paul battles with the religious right about personal freedom, and with the secular left on religious freedom. He believes not only in the right for you to make choices about lifestyle, but also about religion and your public display of it. What’s so bad about that?

 

Ron Paul is a racist.

 

Ron Paul has been called a racist for a few articles that appeared in his news letters over 15 years ago. He claims he did not write them and takes full responsibility for them being there. Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the subject of racism.

 

In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. Our rights come to us not because we belong to some group, but our rights come to us as individuals. And it id as individuals that we should judge one another. Racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.

 

Ron Paul believes individualism is the most “radical challenge to racism ever posed.” Paul wants to end the War on Drugs because he claims it is discriminating against minorities, and also wishes to end the death penalty which he claims is discriminating against the poor and people who aren’t white.

 

I do not believe in the death penalty. They make mistakes - and it’s racist too. More than half the people getting the death penalty are poor blacks. This is the one place, this is the one remnant of racism in our country: the court system, enforcing the drug laws, and enforcing the death penalty. I don’t even know, but I wonder how many people have been executed - over 200? - I wonder how many wwere minorities. If you’re rich, you usually do not get the death penalty. And the DNA evidence now has proven people innocent. I don’t think it’s a very good sign for civilization to still be invoking the death penalty.

 

If you click here you can see Ron Paul’s reaction to his charges of racism. You can decide for yourself if he’s racist.

 

Ron Paul is a libertarian, and libertarians don’t care about the poor.

 

Ron Paul has authored six books on economics and was recently called a genius on the subject. He belongs to one of the most radical schools of thought on earth; the Austrian School of Economics. As Lew Rockwell says, the Austrian School “is a radical alternative for young people.” Ron Paul stated in Liberty Defined:

 

The Austrian School provides a way of looking at economics that takes into account the unpredictability of human action and the huge role of human choice in the way economies work, and explain how it is that order can emerge out of the seemingly chaos of individual action. In short, the Austrian School provides the most robust defense of the economic system of the free society that has ever been made.

 

Ron Paul, as a member of the Austrian School believes that war is economically destructive to the economy and the middle class. He believes in bringing our troops home from around the world. He will then take half that money and reduce the deficit, and take the other half to spend here at home.

 

He wants to end corporate welfare, end the wars, abolish the federal reserve, have sound money, lower the deficit, lower taxes, and reject the notion that replacing our freedom with government power is the answer to our economic problems.

 

We are not cogs in a macroeconomic machine; people will always resist being treated as such. Economics should be as humanitarian as ethics or aesthetics or any other field of study.

 

That doesn’t sound “anti-poor” to me.

[angelofdeath]

I suppose it comes down to definition of it. I of course believe we should be able to say what we want, make our own choices and all of those things we associate with freedom. We have as a society (and the consitution) made a social contract that we should abide by. This is why I am for the uprising in Libya, Syria etc because those people were being held in tyranny, now if I compare that to American society I would hardly say a few regulations etc is tyranny.

 

I know you can argue that the slightest infraction would be deemed as tyranny, however I am a realist, nothing is black and white. I m not against us having free speech or your right to own a gun or any of that, if you look at it black and white then White is completely free with no governments getting involved in your life at all and black being a libya style dictatorship then I think we need some grey, this is why I am for government healthcare and regulation of business.

 

People know my view I dont want business running rampant destroying the planet, monopolising and exploiting the consumer and I also dont want a totalitarian regime running things. I can accept some government intervention for healthcare and welfare therefore I submit to my taxes being taken. Nothing is perfect I just prefer the way it is now to other options currently being used around the world.

 

the social contract theory doesnt hold water. why do i say that? because in order for it to be justified, you must have the consent of the people. the US govt is based on the social contract model, yet i do not recall ever having been asked my consent as to whether i want to live under such an arrangement. all the social contract does is makes it convenient for governments to justify their existence. the basic idea behind it is that if government exists, it is legitimate. nothing could be further from the truth, as far as im concerned.

 

it is nothing but naive to say that the state that most people in the US (or UK or europe, they are farther down the road to serfdom than us) are living in some sort of splendid squalor because they get to vote and trash talk their government, whereas the people in libya dont. we are merely talking in terms of degree of tyranny. which is why i was pushing the idea of the 'tales of a slave' narrative, which you really didnt grasp. libya might of been further down the road to tyranny, but the US is nothing but the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. please examine that slogan for what it is because it reveals nothing but reality. the citizens of the US are not just living under 'a few regulations' they are living under out and out tyranny. consider that the police can kill you with little repercussion, the US gov can invade any part of your privacy they wish and trample any civil liberties you have if they by just calling you a terrorist. they can throw you in jail forever if they want to without even charging you. they even have an assassination list that includes the extra judicial killing of american citizens. we have swat teams killing people every day in botched drug raids. couple that stuff with the 'regulations' you like so much that literally forbid children from operating lemonade stands. to say that the US does not live under the biggest and most powerful government on the earth today and that americans are some how 'free' is sort of like saying that if a slave has the right to roam around without shackles but other slaves have to wear shackles that, the slave that is unshackled is 'free' and the slave with shackles is not.

 

the underlying question has ALWAYS been whether these tyrannical bodies have a right to exist and violate peoples liberty. whether you reject the idea of natural rights or not, its universal that murder and theft are wrong. yet these are the very principles that give coercive governments their power. if you consent to living under such an arrangement, that is fine. you just have no right to force other people to do so. that is the entire heart of the matter.

[Zig]

 

Rick Perry bully tactics against Ron Paul during a commercial break. LOL. Who does this guy think he is? I felt like throwing up when he was talking about capital punishment during the debate as if he's some sort of hero.

 

Op-Ed: Gruesome GOP crowd applauds Perry's execution of 234 humans

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/311262#ixzz1XOKGVgQZ

 

Ron Paul's position on the death penalty:

 

"Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.""

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Capital_punishment

[Zig]

All of Ron Paul's answers last night.

 

 

Almost every question was an assault on the belief in liberty, what a shame.

[Decyferon]

the social contract theory doesnt hold water. why do i say that? because in order for it to be justified, you must have the consent of the people. the US govt is based on the social contract model, yet i do not recall ever having been asked my consent as to whether i want to live under such an arrangement. all the social contract does is makes it convenient for governments to justify their existence. the basic idea behind it is that if government exists, it is legitimate. nothing could be further from the truth, as far as im concerned.

 

it is nothing but naive to say that the state that most people in the US (or UK or europe, they are farther down the road to serfdom than us) are living in some sort of splendid squalor because they get to vote and trash talk their government, whereas the people in libya dont. we are merely talking in terms of degree of tyranny. which is why i was pushing the idea of the 'tales of a slave' narrative, which you really didnt grasp. libya might of been further down the road to tyranny, but the US is nothing but the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. please examine that slogan for what it is because it reveals nothing but reality. the citizens of the US are not just living under 'a few regulations' they are living under out and out tyranny. consider that the police can kill you with little repercussion, the US gov can invade any part of your privacy they wish and trample any civil liberties you have if they by just calling you a terrorist. they can throw you in jail forever if they want to without even charging you. they even have an assassination list that includes the extra judicial killing of american citizens. we have swat teams killing people every day in botched drug raids. couple that stuff with the 'regulations' you like so much that literally forbid children from operating lemonade stands. to say that the US does not live under the biggest and most powerful government on the earth today and that americans are some how 'free' is sort of like saying that if a slave has the right to roam around without shackles but other slaves have to wear shackles that, the slave that is unshackled is 'free' and the slave with shackles is not.

 

the underlying question has ALWAYS been whether these tyrannical bodies have a right to exist and violate peoples liberty. whether you reject the idea of natural rights or not, its universal that murder and theft are wrong. yet these are the very principles that give coercive governments their power. if you consent to living under such an arrangement, that is fine. you just have no right to force other people to do so. that is the entire heart of the matter.

 

same can be said of the consitutional model, who asked everyone if that was what they wanted? where was the referendum?

 

I grasp you r issues so far they amount to I cannot drink raw milk, I cannot own fully automatic weapons I cannot opt of of taxes, thats it, that is the infringement fo your freedoms, as a person in the US you can basically do whatever the hell you want and you still bitch about it, seems ludicrous to me.

[Zig]

http://www.infowars.com/pictures-suggest-perry-attempted-to-physically-intimidate-ron-paul/

 

 

[angelofdeath]

same can be said of the consitutional model, who asked everyone if that was what they wanted? where was the referendum?

 

agreed and this is spooners argument. i personally never signed the document.

 

I grasp you r issues so far they amount to I cannot drink raw milk, I cannot own fully automatic weapons I cannot opt of of taxes, thats it, that is the infringement fo your freedoms, as a person in the US you can basically do whatever the hell you want and you still bitch about it, seems ludicrous to me.

 

hahaha. you are just hilarious man. 'can do whatever you want....'

 

this is just a sampling of 'freedom' in america:

 

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/06/clarence-dupniks-death-squad.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w30.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/department-of-education-swat-raid-for-unpaid-student-loans/

http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

[angelofdeath]

http://www.infowars.com/pictures-suggest-perry-attempted-to-physically-intimidate-ron-paul/

 

 

 

i saw a clip of rand on hannity's show...his story is that no harsh words were exchanged. for some reason, i doubt it

[Lesbian Fisting]

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/ron-paul-abolish-minimum-wage-to-help-poor-people/

 

Really?

[Zig]

You going to say anything yourself, or is "Really?" your entire argument?

[angelofdeath]

thats generally the way 'they' do it. for instance, most of the time you'll see book reviews that criticize stuff in the book, and just present the argument in the book and offer no refutation, but condemn it.

[Lesbian Fisting]

Im just gonna say really.

[angelofdeath]

well, the argument paul puts forth is not really radical at all. especially if one has a basic understanding of economics and removes the class warfare/hysteria goggles for a second.

 

in order to believe the minimum wage 'helps the poor' by raising wages, you must believe that the minimum wage is a 'floor' under wages. even a casual examination reveals this to be nonsense as wages are determined by productivity. if you remove the minimum wage, brain surgeons wont make less nor will they be earning pennies as most minimum wage advocates imagine. the minimum wage is nothing but a hurdle in which one has to jump in order to get a job. you must produce atleast the federally mandated minimum wage in goods/services in order for an employer to hire you. if you have two broken arms, you cant be a paper hanger. or *insert similar example here* therefore if your productivity in the paper hanger business is 0, you cannot get paid 7.50 or whatever the minimum wage is as the employer will be losing 7.50 for every hour he pays you. so in effect, low skilled jobs are outlawed by minimum wage laws.

 

furthermore, if all we have to do is pass a law making to make people richer or make people make more money, why in the world, dont we just raise the minimum wage to 10,000K an hour and we'll all be rich?

[Lesbian Fisting]

I dont believe the minimum wage as a floor, but a safety net. The paper hanger analogy makes sense the way you put it, but is that how the job market really works?

 

If this policy is put in to practice, would employers hire more people because they can now legally pay employees as they see fit, or would they keep the same number and cut their wages?

[angelofdeath]

I dont believe the minimum wage as a floor, but a safety net. The paper hanger analogy makes sense the way you put it, but is that how the job market really works?

 

If this policy is put in to practice, would employers hire more people because they can now legally pay employees as they see fit, or would they keep the same number and cut their wages?

 

your argument is BASED on the theory that it is a floor. and yes, people with a productivity level BELOW govt mandated minimum wage would now be employed if they so wanted to be, if MW was repealed

 

although you claim your argument is based on the MW being a safety net and not a floor, it necessarily means that if it is not a floor, than people with with low productivity wont be employed because the employer will lose money.

 

now, lets put this into play. you are able to produce a product for your employer that takes one hour and brings your employer a total of 5$. how long can this employer stay in business if you are paid 25$ per hour? lets look at it another way. if you think that competition and productivity do not drive wage prices, then you MUST believe that a brain surgeon will be making somewhere around 2 cents an hour if the minimum wage is repealed.

 

all the MW law does is outlaw private transactions between consenting adults at non government approved rates. and since it makes no economic sense to pay someone more than their productivity value, (employer goes broke) the employer will simply not employ someone in the position that has a productivity value of 5$ per hour when he is mandated to pay this person 8$ (or whatever the min wage rates are due to federal and state laws)

 

i'll ask it again, if this 'safety net' is a viable model, why can we not just raise this net to 10K per hour and make every rich?

i'll go ahead and answer this for you, since you eluded it last time. if the MW was raised to 10K per hour, there would be no jobs and no market because probably less than 1% of the people have a productivity this high.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

It would probably depend on the industry, the type of employer and the direction of the business.

 

However if you we're allowed to pay people what the value of their actual job is, you could hire more people, let people work more hours, have more profits, expand your operations, hire more people, etc and etc.

 

The minimum wage mandate really only helps out big business, it is a shame that most people think it is a favor to the poor.

 

Here is something someone much smarter than me has to say about it...

 

http://mises.org/daily/2130

[UPS!]

I understand what you guys are saying and im not saying I agree totally with the minimum wage but in this day and age who the fuck is ganna work for less than $7 an hour?

 

I wouldnt, I wont work minimum wage now, in my opinion that isnt a''livable wage''.

Maby if you work from the minute you wake up till the sun sets you can have your bills paid and if you eat ketchup sandwhiches and never do shit.

 

Gas is around an average of $3.50 a gallon, people would be working just to pay their gas to get to and fro in some cases.

 

I wouldnt work for $7 and hour, and less you got to be fucking joking me. Id rather sell drugs or steal shit before I give an hour of my time for pocket change.

 

I got that employers could hire more people etc etc. , but how would increased productivity help if everyone's broke from only earning 5 dollars and hour when the goods theyre making they cant even afford. No one could buy the excess goods because all their money is paying rent and food.

 

Something has to give, either inflation and the cost of living needs to go down or people need to be paid more. It should be based on your creditials, education, experience etc etc im not for some slob making 10 an hour to sit on his ass or some punk woking at a burger king who sweeps trash but people cant even survive off what theyre getting paid.

 

At my last job I was working with people 10/20/30 years older than me with kids/mortgages and all that steez making the same as I was as a 20 year college student. Im not sure what the answer is other then shit just needs to stop being so fucking expensive or take the money and bonuses of millions of dollars of the chiefs and give it to the fucking indians who keep their machine going.