Jump to content

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!


vanfullofretards

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You are the only one talking about TYT. I have honestly only watched one episode of theirs and it was 5 minutes long. While you continue to drone on and on about theoretical nonsense that does not apply in the real world. It only applies in a classroom environment, which is where all your experience in the world comes from.

 

Me: How will ronnie paulies polices work for the American people in real situations?? Please explain and do not include ideological bullshit.

 

You: blah, blah, blah, nothing about ronnie paulie, blah, blah, blah.

 

Are you actually taking part in the Ron Paul Revolution

thread or are you just spouting nonsense, from your dorm room that is paid for by your parents??

 

Do you have ANYTHING to add to this thread that pertains to ronnie paulie? Because I find all your posts "shallow, unsatisfying, and is not clear cut".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While your above post clearly indicates a dislike towards me, it still does not address anything concerning ronnie paulie. In fact if you go and look back at almost all your posts in this thread, 99% they do not or they are going down some rabbit hole that does not realistically have anything to do with the situation that ronnie paulie would have to deal with if he is elected. All you have to say is wrapped around theories and not actualities.

 

Me on the other hand, wants to know about how nuclear operations would operate without the department of energy (are they trust worthy enough to operate without regulators), like ronnie paulie wants to get rid of. Or how he wants to roll back spending to 2000 levels which would lead us into a depression worse then the first one.

 

See the difference? You just want to talk about nonsense and I want to talk about real stuff.

So, keep talking about TYT and how they are shallow, when you should actually be bring up the subjects that they are talking about and how they pertain (pro/con) to ronnie paulie and America.

 

Go eat some vegemite college boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What amazes me is that ronnie paulie came in 3rd in Iowa and not a single person brought it up.

 

What's the problem, no one want to talk about it?

 

I guess talking about TYT and your shared hatred of me, makes more sense then talking about how ronnie paulie is doing in the very REAL Republican primary in the Ron Paul Revolution thread. Who would have guessed??? :lol: :lol: :lol: You libartarians are so crazy with your dislike of reality. :lol: :lol: :lol:

you-are-so-crazy-lol.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^please tell us who selects them.

 

“Presidents are selected, not elected.”

― Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

for example those whom helped Obama are the Trilateral Commission and Zbigniew Brzezinski. His book (Zbigniew Brzezinski) 'The Grand Chessboard' would be a good starting point if you're interested.

 

"Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What amazes me is that ronnie paulie came in 3rd in Iowa and not a single person brought it up.

 

What's the problem, no one want to talk about it?

 

Sure lets talk about it.

 

Let's start with this video

 

 

Let's talk about the sheer amount of Ron Paul voters you see on the net from every walk of life. Ron wins just about every online vote.

Does the net reflect the outside world these days with the majority having the internet in the west? I bet Ron Paul fucking walked it.

Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections

 

Would you prefer Mitt Romney or maybe Obama do a 2nd term? If you are against Ronnie Paullies policies so much who do you think would be the most appropriate person for the job?

 

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=17231&title=the-romney-con

 

He is a politician however Ron Paul is probably the lesser of the evils. imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight, you think supporters on the Internet mean something? Are you saying he should have won Iowa because of Internet support? Couldn't Internet support just mean that his supporters are more organized, but not neccassarily more numerous?

 

I am not going to fall for comparing him against any other candidate. That takes away from evaluating his policies on their own merit.

 

BTW, I would love to have a rational conversation about this in realistic terms, if you are possible of doing that. Most Ronnie paulie supporters are not able to separate reality from fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am not going to fall for comparing him against any other candidate. That takes away from evaluating his policies on their own merit.

 

 

In that context it appears your opinion of him would be somewhat of a rogue candidate and I assume from your other comments that all of his policies wouldn't fall in line with your own political ideals. Not attempting to make you fall for anything however if you are going to be so critical of all his policies I think it would make for interesting discussion if you were to compare/debate a candidate you support to highlight what you do agree with. Perhaps you don't agree with any of the candidates policies?

 

So, let me get this straight, you think supporters on the Internet mean something? Are you saying he should have won Iowa because of Internet support? Couldn't Internet support just mean that his supporters are more organized, but not neccassarily more numerous?

 

If you watched the video I posted comparing the 2008 coverage (Iwoa) compared to the 2011/12 it would seem somewhat biased that when Ron Paul was in fact leading the polls the media seemed to be disenchanted with the result.

I'm not bothered who wins personally as I'm not an American however one cannot ignore the support he appears to be receiving over the other candidates online. The internet is a powerful tool as I think you will acknowledge and was paramount in the last election.

Regardless of both of our opinions I see an America that is slowly coming to terms with the reality of their government and Ron Paul is offering viable solutions to try and address the real issues instead of Obama wannabes that are all talk and no action. But like I said, the lesser of the evils at this stage, the true test is once the elected takes office. My gut says Obama or Romney will win and that Ron Paul could be merely an illusion to con the voter into thinking democracy is alive and well in the USA, *cliche alert* my heart says he is the underdog and may have chance.

Anywho I've said my piece and the result will be an interesting one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight, you think supporters on the Internet mean something? Are you saying he should have won Iowa because of Internet support? Couldn't Internet support just mean that his supporters are more organized, but not neccassarily more numerous?

 

I am not going to fall for comparing him against any other candidate. That takes away from evaluating his policies on their own merit.

 

BTW, I would love to have a rational conversation about this in realistic terms, if you are possible of doing that. Most Ronnie paulie supporters are not able to separate reality from fact.

 

The thing is, you dictate what is "reality" and what isn't.

 

This game is unplayable and rigged. It is fun to play sometimes, but it gets old quick. That's the problem.

 

You refuse to answer question's, you only demand question's to be answered, and when they are you deny the answers and demand more answer's. See the insanity in this? No, I didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that context it appears your opinion of him would be somewhat of a rogue candidate and I assume from your other comments that all of his policies wouldn't fall in line with your own political ideals. Not attempting to make you fall for anything however if you are going to be so critical of all his policies I think it would make for interesting discussion if you were to compare/debate a candidate you support to highlight what you do agree with. Perhaps you don't agree with any of the candidates policies?

 

I think he is a fringe candidate that is only able to stick out in this election, because the rest of the candidates are so horrible. At this point in the election, with so many other candidates currently running, I think it is fruitless to compare him to anyone, but himself. His policies should stand on their own, not because of a comparison that does not make a difference. The discussion should be about how his policies would actually work if implemented. I do not think that is necessarily being critical of his policies, it is being realistic and wanting decent answers to valid questions. It does not have to match what I think would work, but it does have to make sense if implemented. If this was about any other candidate, I would be asking the same sort of questions.

 

 

 

If you watched the video I posted comparing the 2008 coverage (Iwoa) compared to the 2011/12 it would seem somewhat biased that when Ron Paul was in fact leading the polls the media seemed to be disenchanted with the result. the media is very fickle, but the results are the results. He came in third. whether or not that matters, that is debatable in itself. I personally do not think Iowa matters, other then it allows some candidates to reevaluate if they should continue. If ronnie paulie won, his supporters would have been all over "Iowa matters", but since he came in third, they are not really bringing it up.

I'm not bothered who wins personally as I'm not an American however one cannot ignore the support he appears to be receiving over the other candidates online. The internet is a powerful tool as I think you will acknowledge and was paramount in the last election.

 

While I do see he is getting a lot of online support, there is no way to compare that support to the amount of people who actually support him. This might be your only way to judge his supporters, because you are not here, but they definitely are playing the "game" and they know how to do it. The problem for them is that they can only vote once per person for him, so when they crowd places in Iowa and wherever else, their vote only counts in the place they can vote, which is reflected in his coming in third in iowa. There have been articles written about his candidates following him around the country and volunteering. His supporters are definitely very mobile, vocal, and motivated, but that is not resulting in a large enough portion of the vote for him to win.

Regardless of both of our opinions I see an America that is slowly coming to terms with the reality of their government and Ron Paul is offering viable solutions to try and address the real issues instead of Obama wannabes that are all talk and no action. But like I said, the lesser of the evils at this stage, the true test is once the elected takes office. My gut says Obama or Romney will win and that Ron Paul could be merely an illusion to con the voter into thinking democracy is alive and well in the USA, *cliche alert* my heart says he is the underdog and may have chance.

Anywho I've said my piece and the result will be an interesting one.

 

The thing that alot of people fail to see, especially if they are in another country, is that the loudest person in the room, might not be the most numerous or even close to being representative of a majority of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, you dictate what is "reality" and what isn't.

 

This game is unplayable and rigged. It is fun to play sometimes, but it gets old quick. That's the problem.

 

You refuse to answer question's, you only demand question's to be answered, and when they are you deny the answers and demand more answer's. See the insanity in this? No, I didn't think so.

 

You are just mad that I do not buy into your reality, which is fact sheets from some guy "Tunk" and user made videos from Youtube as fact.

 

It is not my fault that you can not rationally evaluate ronnie paulies policies on their own merit.

 

if you or anyone else post nonsense that blindly follows him or any one else, I will simple ask valid questions, like "how will this work in real life if implemented?". It is not my fault that your messiah's policies do not hold water to basic scrutiny and you are not able to explain simple things.

 

Sorry if I have disturbed your love fest of this obviously flaw candidate. :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I could careless about YOU and what YOU think.

 

I rationally explain everthing, you just don't agree with it, which is fine. I also think it has to do with the fact that you aren't educated in Libertarian philosphy, so when you hear the approach you deny it because you don't fully understand how it would play out.

 

I've explained his foreign policy, and why it works, you say he's a isolationist and that's not how America should run, again because you don't fully grasp what RP wants to do in foreign policy, he doesn't want to ignore the rest of the world (which is what the left and even right think) he would rather trade and talk to all nations than apply sanctions, and all avenues of military action.

 

I've talked about his monetary policy and how that would work, you think government bailouts and oversight is how it should be done, I pointed out that oversight was there and has been there, and they didn't see anything, you think the solution is more of this, I think that this is a mistake all together.

 

I've also talked about Abortion and other social issue's. You bring up his newsletters and his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 64. To basically say he's a racist, when even black colleagues of his know this isn't true, you still think it is.

 

It's because we disagree fundamentally on how government should run, we won't agree, you will deny any of this works.

 

I don't understand why your presence is so large in a thread that supports idea's that you clearly will never agree with. You remind me of the MSM and how they attack the guy, it's just at least their getting paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I could careless about YOU and what YOU think.

 

I rationally explain everything, you just don't agree with it, which is fine. I also think it has to do with the fact that you aren't educated in Libertarian philospohy, so when you hear the approach you deny it because you don't fully understand how it would play out.

 

I've explained his foreign policy, and why it works, you say he's a isolationist and that's not how America should run, again because you don't fully grasp what RP wants to do in foreign policy, he doesn't want to ignore the rest of the world (which is what the left and even right think) he would rather trade and talk to all nations than apply sanctions, and all avenues of military action.

 

I've talked about his monetary policy and how that would work, you think government bailouts and oversight is how it should be done, I pointed out that oversight was there and has been there, and they didn't see anything, you think the solution is more of this, I think that this is a mistake all together.

 

I've also talked about Abortion and other social issue's. You bring up his newsletters and his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 64. To basically say he's a racist, when even black colleagues of his know this isn't true, you still think it is.

 

It's because we disagree fundamentally on how government should run, we won't agree, you will deny any of this works.

 

I don't understand why your presence is so large in a thread that supports idea's that you clearly will never agree with. You remind me of the MSM and how they attack the guy, it's just at least their getting paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cilone dude, just stop man. This is getting up to DAO levels of ridiculousness and the thread becomes shitty every time you start chiming up like a baby (waaah ideological this and that or waaah didn't answer my question waaaah). Grow up and argue maturely or just go somewhere else.

 

That said, I found this somewhere and figured I'd post for reactions.

 

 

The liberty of local bullies

 

I have not been surprised by any of the quotes that have recently come to light from Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I grew up in Texas, remember, and I know from experience that if you talk to a hardcore Paul supporter for a reasonable length of time, these sorts of ideas are more likely than not to come up.

 

So does this mean that Ron Paul's libertarianism is merely a thin veneer covering a bedrock of tribalist white-supremacist paleoconservatism? Well, no, I don't think so. Sure, the tribalist white-supremacist paleoconservatism is there. I just don't think it's incompatible with libertarianism.

 

I have often remarked in the past how libertarianism - at least, its modern American manifestation - is not really about increasing liberty or freedom as an average person would define those terms. An ideal libertarian society would leave the vast majority of people feeling profoundly constrained in many ways. This is because the freedom of the individual can be curtailed not only by the government, but by a large variety of intermediate powers like work bosses, neighborhood associations, self-organized ethnic movements, organized religions, tough violent men, or social conventions. In a society such as ours, where the government maintains a nominal monopoly on the use of physical violence, there is plenty of room for people to be oppressed by such intermediate powers, whom I call "local bullies."

 

The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society - the government (the "big bully") and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.

 

In a perfect libertarian world, it is therefore possible for rich people to buy all the beaches and charge admission fees to whomever they want (or simply ban anyone they choose). In a libertarian world, a self-organized cartel of white people can, under certain conditions, get together and effectively prohibit black people from being able to go out to dinner in their own city. In a libertarian world, a corporate boss can use the threat of unemployment to force you into accepting unsafe working conditions. In other words, the local bullies are free to revoke the freedoms of individuals, using methods more subtle than overt violent coercion.

 

Such a world wouldn't feel incredibly free to the people in it. Sure, you could get together with friends and pool your money to buy a little patch of beach. Sure, you could move to a less racist city. Sure, you could quit and find another job. But doing any of these things requires paying large transaction costs. As a result you would feel much less free.

 

Now, the founders of libertarianism - Nozick et. al. - obviously understood the principle that freedoms are often mutually exclusive - that my freedom to punch you in the face curtails quite a number of your freedoms. For this reason, they endorsed "minarchy," or a government whose only role is to protect people from violence and protect property rights. But they didn't extend the principle to covertly violent, semi-violent, or nonviolent forms of coercion.

 

Not surprisingly, this gigantic loophole has made modern American libertarianism the favorite philosophy of a vast array of local bullies, who want to keep the big bully (government) off their backs so they can bully to their hearts' content. The curtailment of government legitimacy, in the name of "liberty," allows abusive bosses to abuse workers, racists to curtail opportunities for minorities, polluters to pollute without cost, religious groups to make religious minorities feel excluded, etc. In theory, libertarianism is about the freedom of the individual, but in practice it is often about the freedom of local bullies to bully. It's a "don't tattle to the teacher" ideology.

 

Therefore I see no real conflict between Ron Paul's libertarianism and his support for the agenda of racists. It's just part and parcel of the whole movement. Not necessarily the movement as it was conceived, but the movement as it in fact exists.

 

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/liberty-of-local-bullies.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I could careless about YOU and what YOU think.

 

I rationally explain everything, you just don't agree with it, which is fine. I also think it has to do with the fact that you aren't educated in Libertarian philospohy, so when you hear the approach you deny it because you don't fully understand how it would play out.

 

I've explained his foreign policy, and why it works, you say he's a isolationist and that's not how America should run, again because you don't fully grasp what RP wants to do in foreign policy, he doesn't want to ignore the rest of the world (which is what the left and even right think) he would rather trade and talk to all nations than apply sanctions, and all avenues of military action.

 

I've talked about his monetary policy and how that would work, you think government bailouts and oversight is how it should be done, I pointed out that oversight was there and has been there, and they didn't see anything, you think the solution is more of this, I think that this is a mistake all together.

 

I've also talked about Abortion and other social issue's. You bring up his newsletters and his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 64. To basically say he's a racist, when even black colleagues of his know this isn't true, you still think it is.

 

It's because we disagree fundamentally on how government should run, we won't agree, you will deny any of this works.

 

I don't understand why your presence is so large in a thread that supports idea's that you clearly will never agree with. You remind me of the MSM and how they attack the guy, it's just at least their getting paid.

 

hahaha, you just made this all up and never once said anything of substance. You are even trying to words in my mouth, because you can not come up with your arguments and probably copied this from somewhere. Show me one time I brought up Abortion and argued it. Show me one time I brought up the Civil Rights Act and argued it. You won't, because I didn't. You are because those are the points that you are being told to go after.

 

I am asking valid questions about how his policies will work for America, and you can not answer because they are not in your ronnie paulie script and now you are trying to argue on subjects that you already have prepared answers for. I seem like the MSM, because you have yourself blinded to only be able to talk about the subjects that they are bringing up. You seem to have a real shallow viewpoint, that does not extend further then youtube.

 

I am educated in the Libertarian philosophy. I also see it for the bullshit it is. Because I do not fall in lockstep with your nonsense, does not mean i do not understand it.

 

I have no problem with people disagreeing, but I do have a problem with bullshit from the most conservative politician in the history of modern politics (at least since 1937). older link, but still shows what I am saying. BTW, it has math in it, so you libertarians might not understand it. Look on the very bottom for ronnie paulie

 

I will continue to ask valid questions like what will happen to the Patent and Trademark office, since ronnie paulie wants to get rid of the Department of Commerce. BTW, patent info falls under the constitution, but I do not expect the selective reading of the constitution that you followers to acknowledge that. Valid question about an objective that he has publicly stated.

 

Don't worry, I do not expect any of you to reply intelligently about how his policies will affect our country.

 

Are you going to try and cut and paste, and try to frame this discussion again?:lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cilone dude, just stop man. This is getting up to DAO levels of ridiculousness and the thread becomes shitty every time you start chiming up like a baby (waaah ideological this and that or waaah didn't answer my question waaaah). Grow up and argue maturely or just go somewhere else.

 

If you want this to be a libertarian lovefest and for valid questions about how things will actually operate in the world if any of this bullshit is implemented to not be answered, I will stop, but just because you are a mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I found this somewhere and figured I'd post for reactions.

 

 

The liberty of local bullies

 

I have not been surprised by any of the quotes that have recently come to light from Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I grew up in Texas, remember, and I know from experience that if you talk to a hardcore Paul supporter for a reasonable length of time, these sorts of ideas are more likely than not to come up.

 

So does this mean that Ron Paul's libertarianism is merely a thin veneer covering a bedrock of tribalist white-supremacist paleoconservatism? Well, no, I don't think so. Sure, the tribalist white-supremacist paleoconservatism is there. I just don't think it's incompatible with libertarianism.

 

I have often remarked in the past how libertarianism - at least, its modern American manifestation - is not really about increasing liberty or freedom as an average person would define those terms. An ideal libertarian society would leave the vast majority of people feeling profoundly constrained in many ways. This is because the freedom of the individual can be curtailed not only by the government, but by a large variety of intermediate powers like work bosses, neighborhood associations, self-organized ethnic movements, organized religions, tough violent men, or social conventions. In a society such as ours, where the government maintains a nominal monopoly on the use of physical violence, there is plenty of room for people to be oppressed by such intermediate powers, whom I call "local bullies."

 

The modern American libertarian ideology does not deal with the issue of local bullies. In the world envisioned by Nozick, Hayek, Rand, and other foundational thinkers of the movement, there are only two levels to society - the government (the "big bully") and the individual. If your freedom is not being taken away by the biggest bully that exists, your freedom is not being taken away at all.

 

In a perfect libertarian world, it is therefore possible for rich people to buy all the beaches and charge admission fees to whomever they want (or simply ban anyone they choose). In a libertarian world, a self-organized cartel of white people can, under certain conditions, get together and effectively prohibit black people from being able to go out to dinner in their own city. In a libertarian world, a corporate boss can use the threat of unemployment to force you into accepting unsafe working conditions. In other words, the local bullies are free to revoke the freedoms of individuals, using methods more subtle than overt violent coercion.

 

Such a world wouldn't feel incredibly free to the people in it. Sure, you could get together with friends and pool your money to buy a little patch of beach. Sure, you could move to a less racist city. Sure, you could quit and find another job. But doing any of these things requires paying large transaction costs. As a result you would feel much less free.

 

Now, the founders of libertarianism - Nozick et. al. - obviously understood the principle that freedoms are often mutually exclusive - that my freedom to punch you in the face curtails quite a number of your freedoms. For this reason, they endorsed "minarchy," or a government whose only role is to protect people from violence and protect property rights. But they didn't extend the principle to covertly violent, semi-violent, or nonviolent forms of coercion.

 

Not surprisingly, this gigantic loophole has made modern American libertarianism the favorite philosophy of a vast array of local bullies, who want to keep the big bully (government) off their backs so they can bully to their hearts' content. The curtailment of government legitimacy, in the name of "liberty," allows abusive bosses to abuse workers, racists to curtail opportunities for minorities, polluters to pollute without cost, religious groups to make religious minorities feel excluded, etc. In theory, libertarianism is about the freedom of the individual, but in practice it is often about the freedom of local bullies to bully. It's a "don't tattle to the teacher" ideology.

 

Therefore I see no real conflict between Ron Paul's libertarianism and his support for the agenda of racists. It's just part and parcel of the whole movement. Not necessarily the movement as it was conceived, but the movement as it in fact exists.

 

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/liberty-of-local-bullies.html

 

for what its worth, i consider this a well framed argument even if it is slightly off base.

 

at first glance i thought this was going to be about the fact that RP is not in favor of using an extra constitutional powered federal government to intervene in state affairs.

 

the part the author is leaving out is this. the 'local' bully is voluntary. the 'government' bully, isnt.

 

the article mentions an HOA. this is a form of voluntary government. when the developer built the neighborhood, they developed an association to govern it and as a requirement of moving into that neighborhood, you had to abide by those rules. its no different than you setting up rules to enter your own house or setting up rules as to what people at your bbq can do.

 

the argument about someone buying up something and refusing to admit entry is a common argument. except they forget one thing. it is perfectly legal to do this right now with a myriad of things. why arent rich people buying up all the food and refusing to sell it to poor people?

 

racial hatred is another common example. but it just doesnt jive. first the underlying assumption is that people who value freedom are capitalist pigs seeking to exploit people at whatever cost and seeking to make money at any cost. yet in the next breath we are to believe that these same greedy people are also going to eliminate a portion of their customer base because of their skin color.

 

"In other words, the local bullies are free to revoke the freedoms of individuals, using methods more subtle than overt violent coercion."

 

that is the cause of most of the confusion.

if a person owns a beach, owns a business or owns a house, first and foremost, the owner controls it. there is no right to trespass. therefore, the statement that ones freedom is being reduced by having private property rights or private rules to govern it is blatantly false. no one has a right to enter anyone elses property in the first place. to claim that ones freedom is being infringed upon by not being served at a restaurant for instance is to also claim that this person has a right to another persons life, labor, or property. which they dont.

 

to use an analogy. if you believe that freedom is being infringed upon by these 'local' bullies, you must therefore be forced to leave your front door open. why? because bums need a place to sleep. by keeping your door closed and a fence around your yard, you are restricting the 'freedom' of the bum. you must also keep your wifes legs spread open, so as to further increase the bums freedom.

 

its not your freedom that is being infringed by these 'local bullies,' its just that you dont like what they do with their property and associations. it would be valid for you to not like their property ownership rules or associations, but ones freedom isnt being infringed in those situations described in the article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want this to be a libertarian lovefest and for valid questions about how things will actually operate in the world if any of this bullshit is implemented to not be answered, I will stop, but just because you are a mod.

 

:lol: I know I'm feeding the troll here so apologies in advance but the previous and current president have implemented some solid bullshit for example Bush with the patriot act and continuing his fathers war and Obama care and the fact he bailed out Goldman Sachs (one of his biggest campaign donators).

In other news

 

Ron Paul's "Racist Writings" DEBUNKED. Real Author: James B. Powell exposed by Ben Swann & TMOT

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1dhyuZdY9c

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might just add that when libertarians talk about coercion they mean threats, implicit or explicit, of force. So the boss who says to their employee 'you better work extra hours or you're fired' would not be considered coercive. Moreover, where Noah says that to leave your job or leave your town in the face of discrimination etc would come at a personal cost, well this is true, however it would also come at a cost for those doing the discriminating.

 

Last point; Noah would do well to read about the Non-Aggression Principle, as, in accordance with this conception no-one has the 'freedom' to initiate damage to life or property. Noah's point here just shows he (?) hasn't done his homework.

 

wait sorry i might be being an idiot but how is a boss saying 'you better work extra hours or you're fired' is not making a threat against that person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its because the employee doesnt have a right to work on/at someone's business/property. and in the same manner a boss cannot force the employee to stay/work/etc. both have the right to cease the association.

that is the one part most people dont get. the people who make such arguments as you did, typically believe that underlying the entire situation is that an employee has a certain right to force themselves on someone or some business whether the other party agrees or not.

 

a boss setting various requirements is no different than you setting requirements for people to come to your house.

 

what if a bunch of neo nazis came in your living room and you said 'get out or im going to call the cops.''

according to your logic, you are making threats against them. i say you are ending an association and protecting your rights/property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is the only candidate that will make a change if elected> Lots of people got enthralled with

 

Obama but hes from crook town Chicago, i knew he was full of shit from the get go. this guy thou

 

is different. Hes been in politics for years with the same stern point of views... no need to change now.

 

Unfortunately lots of Americans are ignorant as to how the fiat currency system works and its

axiomatic collapse.

 

I dont share all the views that Ron Paul has, including healthcare and abortion policies but compared

 

to the positive impact he can make for North America in the long run with his monetary and foreign

 

policies, hes got my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its because the employee doesnt have a right to work on/at someone's business/property. and in the same manner a boss cannot force the employee to stay/work/etc. both have the right to cease the association.

that is the one part most people dont get. the people who make such arguments as you did, typically believe that underlying the entire situation is that an employee has a certain right to force themselves on someone or some business whether the other party agrees or not.

 

a boss setting various requirements is no different than you setting requirements for people to come to your house.

 

what if a bunch of neo nazis came in your living room and you said 'get out or im going to call the cops.''

according to your logic, you are making threats against them. i say you are ending an association and protecting your rights/property.

 

if my contract of work states I work from 9-5 and the boss tells me to work extra hours or get fired then you better believe I would be sueing his ass for unfair dismissal if he fired me and would have the law behind me. I have a right to not be taken advantage of as an employee, without any law to protect my rights as a worker employers could basically reduce you to slave labour, and it wouldnt just be one employer doing it, they all would because they would know the situation would be as shit anywhere else for the employee and anything to maximise profits would benefit them as an employer thus negating working conditions laws etc

 

Your arguement about neo nazis is nothing like the employee situation, there is a contract agreed on between employer and employee there is no such thing if someone invades your home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if my contract of work states I work from 9-5 and the boss tells me to work extra hours or get fired then you better believe I would be sueing his ass for unfair dismissal if he fired me and would have the law behind me. I have a right to not be taken advantage of as an employee, without any law to protect my rights as a worker employers could basically reduce you to slave labour, and it wouldnt just be one employer doing it, they all would because they would know the situation would be as shit anywhere else for the employee and anything to maximise profits would benefit them as an employer thus negating working conditions laws etc

 

in that you are right.

but there was no talk of any contract in the original example.

most people when they get a job, dont sign any contract saying they only work certain hours. there might be an implicit contract. but i thought for brevity's sake, my take was the author wasnt including contracts in the argument to simplify it.

but this is implicit in the argument, or so i thought. of course any contractual obligations trump this discussion. in the same manner if you sign a contract that says you must work 100 hours a week, you voluntarily take the job, you cant cry foul play after the second week and start crying about working to much.

as stated, if an employer BREAKS THE CONTRACT, he has indeed violated the agreement and is in the wrong. he can then be prosecuted, dealt with, etc etc.

besides the original article was about unsafe working conditions, not wages.

which can also be solved via contract, which is a free association. if a private agreement like a contract can fix working hours, why cant it fix unsafe working conditions?

this is all just part of a free association.

 

in a free society, an employer couldnt force you to be a slave, because, unlike a slave you have a right to leave. and because competition exists, wages would be determined by the market. just like any other price. the same reason why a gas company cant charge 100,000,000$ for one gallon of gas, is the same reason why an employer cant pay your negative infinity in wages. would you work for negative infinity? or 3$ an hour when your productivity level is 50$ an hour? i think not. and before you respond with...'but if we had freedom, employers would all collude and make it so the only jobs were 3$ an hour.' you would then find yourself with NO ONE that will work hence they have to raise the pay to a market level.

 

every business would like to pay labor negative infinity an hour, just like every employee would like to make positive infinity hour. the market determines the actual value of a certain service

 

Your arguement about neo nazis is nothing like the employee situation, there is a contract agreed on between employer and employee there is no such thing if someone invades your home.

 

you didnt state that, but it really doesnt matter.

most people consider that if an employer asks am employee to work an extra hour and be paid accordingly is tyrannizing the employee. so i must take the charges with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with an employer asking and paying accordingly for an employee working extra hours, Frankie had said 'work extra hours or get fired' that is completely different.

 

I have also never had a job that I didn't sign a contract of employment, they state the working hours say 37.5hours anytime between 8-8. Also stating in most contracts is a notice saying if the employer wants to change hours there is a period of notice to the employee.

 

I wouldn't take a job if there wasn't a contract otherwise I wouldn't have a leg to stand on and all power would be held by the employer.

 

Also your trying to say that no one would work if all employers paid 3 bucks an hour, how would they survive they would have to work for those wages. There wouldn't be a choice because you don't believe in welfare either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...