Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[Fist 666]

okay.

[Decyferon]

you have that same racket going on that elmammero does...

you cant respond to the actual debate points, you just interject stuff like this.

 

its quite obvious you have never studied a lick of any free market theory because you cant even grasp the basics.

 

its not from benevolence that we get our wares from the butcher and baker, its because he has a keen awareness for his own self interest. because he seeks his own self interest, he has to satisfy his customers, otherwise he cant profit.

 

you guys keep making incoherent arguments.

first you say business only cares about profit and seeks to rip off customers. then you try to tell me that when it comes to schools and serving blacks and minorities they suddenly dont want to seek profit, they want to kill people of color. that they dont want to serve blacks. all of a sudden they dont want to seek their own self interest.

 

a school shouldnt be about profit it should be about creating a good education for children, people cannot afford to pay the fees that the private schools charge, and they certainly pay less in taxes than the tuition fees charged by the private schools.

 

I think it is a frankly disgusting notion that people think that just because they dont have children they shouldnt contribute towards free education for ALL children no matter race or anything else. A school isnt about self interest and it should never be it is about educating and having a workforce that will be able to enter the workplace and compete, under your plans AOD most countries would be fucked, just look at education in the 3rd world where people cannot afford to pay for it.

[angelofdeath]

a school shouldnt be about profit it should be about creating a good education for children, people cannot afford to pay the fees that the private schools charge, and they certainly pay less in taxes than the tuition fees charged by the private schools.

 

businesses cater to consumer demands. supply and demand. econ 101.

government schools cost twice as much as private schools, home schooling costs a fraction of the cost of a private school. given an increased demand if government schools were abandoned, a supply would meet it. look at car repair. we have so many different levels. dealers, independent repair shops, quick lubes, back yard garages...all get the job done at different levels of quality and cost. hell, look at pricing of cars. if we had nationalized cars you'd say we need to subsidize and nationalize cars because no one could afford them if they were in private hands. yet we have kia's that cost 10K new and we have mercedes benz. we have used cars. every single possible price range and level of quality is met. if there is a demand there will be a supply

 

a business cannot make a profit, UNLESS IT SATISFIES CONSUMERS. you fully acknowlege business wants to make money, but you neglect to see that in order for business to make money, it has to satisfy its customers. in government they dont have to. which is why you see the mall parking lot well maintained, and the public road leading to it, full of pot holes. you see, governments get their revenue through violence, they get it weather they do a good job or not. business must persuade you to give them money in exchange for goods or services.

 

you are making a dangerous admission in your case above. you are stating the obvious. people want good schools. yet you are saying if we abandon public schools, (which are undeniably less efficient and produce dumber kids that state schools) that the greedy capitalists wouldnt fill the void. that they would not meet the demand of school consumers.

 

you critiqued one of my arguments previously that i 'want something for nothing.' that i dont 'want to pay for things.' which is exactly what you are advocating. you are saying that you dont want to pay for your kids education, so you send guys with badges to the guy down the block to take his money to pay for your kids education.

 

I think it is a frankly disgusting notion that people think that just because they dont have children they shouldnt contribute towards free education for ALL children no matter race or anything else. A school isnt about self interest and it should never be it is about educating and having a workforce that will be able to enter the workplace and compete, under your plans AOD most countries would be fucked, just look at education in the 3rd world where people cannot afford to pay for it.

if you feel the need to educate other peoples children or pay for your neighbohrs grandparents retirement, feel free to stroke off a check, brother.

 

the third world has no wealth, no resources, nothing.

that is like comparing modern america where the poor have cell phones to the native americans on this continent in the year 1500 and then saying...'see, if we didnt have government schools like we do, we;d be ignorant and living in teepees just like the indians.'

yet it is capitalism that has allowed the accumulation of capital for investment. it is because of capitalism and capital investment that you are able to have leisure time, the time to debate political theory on the internet on a computer made by someone that you exploited in china. you see, if we were poor like we were in 1800, we would be working all day just so we could eat. now we can work a couple hours out of one day and have enough capital for food for the entire week. that is because we have a high standard of living due to capitalism, due to competition and due to the free market.

 

the problem with your arguments is that they presume that wealth just exists. you neglect to realize it must be created first. you take it as a given. it is something that has taken modern 'first world' societies many years to create.

[Decyferon]

your having a laugh the 3rd world i.e africa has shit loads of resources

[angelofdeath]

ok, they have resources, but no capital to do anything with them.

after all, they are so poor, what do they need them for? what good are the resources?

trying to make your case is like saying america in 1800 was super rich because we had oil coming out the wazoo. it wasnt until capitalism and the living standard rose and capital investments and inventions gave rise to the value in oil

[El Mamerro]

man, you got a racket going on.

some how you manage to not respond to my posts but you reinforce what a similar ideologue says while ignoring my arguments. im going to have to try this. stop debating directly with people and just talk to similar like minded people and point what i think are flaws in the opposing sides arguments, without ever really addressing the argument.

 

You should, I highly recommend it!

 

I know from experience that "addressing the argument" with you means getting into and endless back-and-forth tussle consisting of kilometric fragmented quote-and-respond tirades that quickly lose all sense of intrigue and informational value, as it all degenerates into a one way trip to Missing The Pointville.

 

My stance has always been clear and was laid out in the post previous to the one you quoted. I actually find your posts, along with Frankiefiver's and others likeminded to be very enlightening and perspective-expanding, even if I don't agree with the eventual conclusion. Your logic is usually pretty damn sound and your point of view clear and justified. I simply don't think that the simplicity of that logic survives scaling up to the complexity of the real world, and I take issue with your insistence of remaining in the realm of simplicity because it's the only place that affords safe harbor for your arguments.

 

I merely stand by my belief that as flawed as the workings of the current world are, which you are also quite keen on pointing out (and which I often agree with), the world you propose will result in something that feels FAR less free for most of the people in it, regardless of its strict adherence to the principles of freedom. And I will continue to chime in on occasion to point those things out, without diving into the pit of futility that drawn-out arguments always end up in.

[Spambot5000]

decy: when all their philosophies boil down they have this: each person is an individual entity with no responsibility to anyone else or rights over any one else. there is no inherent duty or membership to any society. each individual is only responsible for himself.

 

 

 

This comment is fantastic. It illustrates a common logical fallacy amongst many of the critiques levied in here. Let me first say that you are right in one aspect; I have no rights over another. I would be interested to hear if you can make a convincing argument suggesting why I should? Now where you are way wrong; when you say "there is no inherent duty or membership to any society" you are creating a false dichotomy. You are framing responsibility to society as responsibility to the state, thus if I reject the state I have rejected society. I think you would be hard pressed to find any libertarian who did not acknowledge they are members of a society and within that society they held some responsibility. The state is not society.

 

Also, I am still waiting for a working definition of the social contract. If you want to employ this as a basis for the legitimacy of taxation then it, as a concept, must hold integrity.

[angelofdeath]

T You are framing responsibility to society as responsibility to the state, thus if I reject the state I have rejected society. I think you would be hard pressed to find any libertarian who did not acknowledge they are members of a society and within that society they held some responsibility. The state is not society.

 

EXTREMELY well put!

[Soup forgot his password]

Considering America is a society that is resposible for eachother's wellfare through the state, wouldnt that be a rejection of society? Senior services, public roads, public schools, fire departments, etc. By not paying for those what is your stance on society?

[russell jones]

 

im not really saying that...what i am saying is that most of human history children 'worked.' this is just reality. to deny is to deny reality. and they didnt work because their parents were evil or because boss men with white moustaches forced them to by putting guns to their heads. they worked to keep the family afloat. it was only when capitalism made people rich enough that one or two people in the family could work to provide for the entire family did kids not work in any way at all.

 

 

I'm nitpicking here, but splitting hairs does make a difference. When you say that for "most of human history, children worked," you are technically correct, since "history" begins with writing. However, child labor did not happen in the human species until the Neolithic Revolution, c. 10,000-2,000 BCE. Some cultures never farmed, they are still hunter gatherers, and their children do not work.

 

In the 19th century though, children worked not only on farms, but in factories as well. That was some pretty unregulated capitalism no? I don't consider it a bad thing that children no longer do that.

 

I'm sympathetic to your story about the local food farmer who can't have kids work for him for pay. Regulation is always a double edge sword, child labor laws stop kids from crawling around in dirty dark places in factories, but they also deny children opportunities. I'm not saying there is a good solution for this problem, but throwing out the regulation completely doesn't seem like a good idea either.

 

That being said, I worked at the church bingo as a child, and I was paid.

 

The other thing you said that was quite interesting to me was that colonial times would seem like relative anarchy compared to now. I see your point, the federal or colonial government would have little influence on or power over people in 18th century America. But at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most people's lives, and the course of their lives, were far more prescribed than our lives today. Most people did what their parents did. The church had more control over their lives. Communities were smaller and closer, people were shamed out of bad behavior and encouraged into good behavior. We have much more freedom to choose our direction in our jobs, relationships, where we live, etc., because many social controls are modified or non-existent. Our freedom to choose a career is a double edged sword as well, since we are also free to fail. In 18th century America, the prodigal son would return and the community would pick him up. 20-21st century prodigal son may have no one or where to return to. We have welfare of course, but libertarians want to abolish it, even though its predecesor no longer exists and its successor is not apparent.

 

To summarize, we live in a fundamentally different world than 18th century Europeans and Americans. Indeed, the opening of the 20th century was a sea change from the end of the 18th. What is freedom and what is not freedom has changed, it is never universal, and never as simple as you seem to make it out to be.

 

I respect the consistency of the Libertarian ethos, but its inflexibility reveals its lack of historical context and present usefulness. I am not advocating throwing out the ideals of it, but it must be in a world that actually exists today.

[McLovin]

^wow, how is that for a reply? :huh2: / lots of good stuff in this thread nonRP related.

[Spambot5000]

Considering America is a society that is resposible for eachother's wellfare through the state, wouldnt that be a rejection of society? Senior services, public roads, public schools, fire departments, etc. By not paying for those what is your stance on society?

 

You are just repeating the same mistake. The state is an institution, or a network of institutions, which uses particular means to achieve particular ends. Rejecting these institutions is solely that; a rejection of particular means to achieve particular ends. It says nothing of responsibility or the degree to which one is integrated within society.

[Soup forgot his password]

I think you might be confusing "culture" for "society." We are a pluralistic society with many cultures, but what connects that pluralism together? Public education. Public wellfare. Public government. Another word for those things could be, "The State." More than owning property and watching football, voting and paying taxes for things around our community connects us to one another. And by "network of institutions" you mean public services that were elected by voters for the betterment of society. Thats the thing I dont get about libertarianism, without the "visible hand" where's the commonwealth and philanthropy? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-charity-republican-2012_n_983721.html

 

Or maybe im misunderstanding what you're trying to say. If you were to not partake in anything related to the state: I.E. not pay taxes, not vote, only use private schools, private libraries, private zoos, private roads, private soup kitchens, products from private companies who've never taken advantage of public loans, never pay into or take out of social security, never purchase property within the state, never use a public fire department or call the police.... if you had no part in any of that, what's left for you to connect to your fellow americans with?

 

 

 

Another small point I'd like to add to this page would be that child labor laws were made to protect children from indentured servitude or slave labor... not stacking cans for the corner store after school. We forget that kids are retarded midgets who can be made to do anything, and in the 18th and 19th centuries were made to do anything. If you want a taste of that today, go to india and watch poor people sell their kids into slavery and those kids go on to work in factories or do dumb shit like snake charm for pennies. And I dont even care what the history of labor is in this country because the more pressing fact comes from the immediate future: I see unskilled labor going extinct. That middle-american dream of dropping out of school and making an honest living in the fields or in a factory are over. I think kids are waking up to that fact but we need child labor laws in place to make sure they dont relapse and drop out. What do you think about 12 year old Middle Americans allowed to plow fields for $2 under minimum wage? That currently exists.

[Spambot5000]

I think you might be confusing "culture" for "society." We are a pluralistic society with many cultures, but what connects that pluralism together? Public education. Public wellfare. Public government. Another word for those things could be, "The State." More than owning property and watching football, voting and paying taxes for things around our community connects us to one another. And by "network of institutions" you mean public services that were elected by voters for the betterment of society. Thats the thing I dont get about libertarianism, without the "visible hand" where's the commonwealth and philanthropy? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-charity-republican-2012_n_983721.html

 

Or maybe im misunderstanding what you're trying to say. If you were to not partake in anything related to the state: I.E. not pay taxes, not vote, only use private schools, private libraries, private zoos, private roads, private soup kitchens, products from private companies who've never taken advantage of public loans, never pay into or take out of social security, never purchase property within the state, never use a public fire department or call the police.... if you had no part in any of that, what's left for you to connect to your fellow americans with?

 

You are right, what constitutes society is a slippery subject, which is certainly open to debate. Presenting the US as a pluralistic society is certainly one argument, but it is one amongst many. It is not definitive. I am most definitely not talking about culture, I am talking about society, as an entity or multiplicity of intersecting entities, which are in part influenced but not defined by the state. In contrast, by continuing to frame society through a national lens you seem to be unable to accept that the state and society are not one and the same.

[TheoHuxtable..]

[Soup forgot his password]

You are right, what constitutes society is a slippery subject, which is certainly open to debate. Presenting the US as a pluralistic society is certainly one argument, but it is one amongst many. It is not definitive. I am most definitely not talking about culture, I am talking about society, as an entity or multiplicity of intersecting entities, which are in part influenced but not defined by the state. In contrast, by continuing to frame society through a national lens you seem to be unable to accept that the state and society are not one and the same.

 

I took Rhetoric 10 too bud. And while questioning the very meaning of words worked great for Socrates and Plato in the Phaedrus on subjects of "time" "perception" "space" and "reality", your goal here isnt to win a rhetorical debate or even a philosophy debate. This is a debate on economic ideologies vs how they play out in reality.

 

And I didnt say what constitutes society is a slippery subject. "Society" is a very definitive term. Your definition of society might not be. Everyone else's definition is written in a dictionary.

Same with america being a pluralistic society. Im a white dude who lives alone and makes money selling virtual goods. The unit next to mine houses ten mexicans who dont speak a lick of english. This is a pluralistic society.

[Spambot5000]

I took Rhetoric 10 too bud. And while questioning the very meaning of words worked great for Socrates and Plato in the Phaedrus on subjects of "time" "perception" "space" and "reality", your goal here isnt to win a rhetorical debate or even a philosophy debate. This is a debate on economic ideologies vs how they play out in reality.

 

And I didnt say what constitutes society is a slippery subject. "Society" is a very definitive term. Your definition of society might not be. Everyone else's definition is written in a dictionary.

Same with america being a pluralistic society. Im a white dude who lives alone and makes money selling virtual goods. The unit next to mine houses ten mexicans who dont speak a lick of english. This is a pluralistic society.

 

haha so you think white guys do white guy stuff and Mexicans do Mexican stuff and that's what constitutes pluralism? How simplistic. Anyway I should have known better than to bother engaging with our local npr podcast expert. Of course you're right dude, you are always right! Right?

[cunt sauce]

your economic beliefs seem based on a soft marxism. so i can assume you never were taught basic free market economics or totally reject econ 101.

 

Dude, austrian economists aren't the only people who are academics in the field of Economics. There are plenty of economists that instruct on the college level that are Keynesian, Austrian, Marxian, Syndicalist, etc. The only people who say shit like "if you ain't da free market, you don't know da economics" are fucktards that live on the Ludwig von Mises institute and haven't gone on in economics past their undergrad.

[cunt sauce]

check out and discuss: The Myths of "Libertarian" Economics

[Fist 666]

Also, I am still waiting for a working definition of the social contract. If you want to employ this as a basis for the legitimacy of taxation then it, as a concept, must hold integrity.

 

i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up.

yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it.

 

google defines society:

1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

 

both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group.

 

yes?

[angelofdeath]

 

The other thing you said that was quite interesting to me was that colonial times would seem like relative anarchy compared to now. I see your point, the federal or colonial government would have little influence on or power over people in 18th century America. But at the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution, most people's lives, and the course of their lives, were far more prescribed than our lives today. Most people did what their parents did. The church had more control over their lives. Communities were smaller and closer, people were shamed out of bad behavior and encouraged into good behavior. We have much more freedom to choose our direction in our jobs, relationships, where we live, etc., because many social controls are modified or non-existent. Our freedom to choose a career is a double edged sword as well, since we are also free to fail. In 18th century America, the prodigal son would return and the community would pick him up. 20-21st century prodigal son may have no one or where to return to. We have welfare of course, but libertarians want to abolish it, even though its predecesor no longer exists and its successor is not apparent.

 

To summarize, we live in a fundamentally different world than 18th century Europeans and Americans. Indeed, the opening of the 20th century was a sea change from the end of the 18th. What is freedom and what is not freedom has changed, it is never universal, and never as simple as you seem to make it out to be.

 

i think the concept of freedom under natural rights theory has always been universal and always will be. for instance, i dont think people could ever think human chattel slavery was 'freedom.' yet when people are chained to the state, they think this is freedom.

 

i think your first paragraph up there addresses a key point. hobbes vs locke. if humans are free, do they have to rely on themselves and communities? or when humans are free, do they kill each for looking at one another cross ways? the very heart of the debate is...is liberty the mother of order or the daughter? im thoroughly convinced liberty is the MOTHER of order, not the other way around.

given that all state invervention has unintended consquences, i think its quite clear the state creates many more problems than it solves.

 

in refererence to welfare you cannot negate the fact that the state has replaced the family and the community in these areas. i think you realized this but didnt really blame the government for taking away the community/family aspects of the sitaution you talked about above. if the state no longer acted as the 'safety net' people would be forced to rely on themselves. its in effect a moral hazard. you tend to act differently if you have something to fall back on. if you have 5 million in cash sitting in a bank account, you probably dont really care if you boss at your job fires you all that much. if you have nothing to fall back on at all, you might really try to do your best at your job and do as much as you can to excel, get promoted, open your own business, etc. but if you have a high social safety net, it creates a moral hazard type situation, not unlike the bail outs. people take risks, and do stupid things, knowing full well they have the government to fall back on. which is why we have this new phenomenon among hipsters and im sure familiar to many on this board....leaving your job, getting unemployment and traveling for a year while collecting a check. or college kids with parents paying 30K a year for school, on food stamps shopping at the farmers market.

 

 

i also think the 'inflexibility' of a particular philosophy is a good thing, especially when used for the 'right' purpose. of course, i would of liked hitler to be a bit more 'flexible' instead of instituting the 'final solution...' but i digress

if you believe that you own your self, you are necessarily against slavery in all its forms. any power over you that you did not consent to is illegitimate. in the the same way you cant just be 'a little bit pregnant...' you are either free or your arent. to me there is nothing capable of 'flexing' on that. you are either enslaved or you are free and any arbitrary power over you is necessarily evil, unless you consent to it. now, the situations in which you may live might not be stalinist russia, just like there probably were some well treated slaves on certain plantations, but the fact remains you are still a slave.

[angelofdeath]

Considering America is a society that is resposible for eachother's wellfare through the state, wouldnt that be a rejection of society? Senior services, public roads, public schools, fire departments, etc. By not paying for those what is your stance on society?

 

 

this is akin to saying you are against slaves if you dont praise the slave owner. after all the slave owner is responsible for the slaves welfare. by not supporting the slave owner, you are 'rejecting' the slaves.

[angelofdeath]

Or maybe im misunderstanding what you're trying to say. If you were to not partake in anything related to the state: I.E. not pay taxes, not vote, only use private schools, private libraries, private zoos, private roads, private soup kitchens, products from private companies who've never taken advantage of public loans, never pay into or take out of social security, never purchase property within the state, never use a public fire department or call the police.... if you had no part in any of that, what's left for you to connect to your fellow americans with?

 

 

WOW. by not calling the police or using a government loan, you cannot connect to your fellow americans?

GOT DAMN, public schools brain washed the F out of you. just sayin, that is probably the siliiest thing you have EVER written.

 

 

 

What do you think about 12 year old Middle Americans allowed to plow fields for $2 under minimum wage? That currently exists.

 

so what you are saying is someone is breaking the current law, so another law will fix this. got ya. makes perfect sense. those stupid murderers dont pay attention to murder laws, so now we gotta lock up peaceful gun owners who have aggressed against no one, because its possible to use a gun to kill someone when a deranged murderous criminal gets a hold of one.

 

joel salatin, a well known person in the 'food' culture today, who is a hero of the left if there ever was one, has a great theory that says the reason why we have roving teenage gangs today is because the things kids used to do to wear them out, where they went to bed at 8pm is now illegal.

what about parents? where are the parents in these situations? something is telling me that we dont have millionaires sending their kids off to 'plow fields' (what are these 12 year old kids operating 100K tractors all by themselves?) making 2$ an hour.

[angelofdeath]

Dude, austrian economists aren't the only people who are academics in the field of Economics. There are plenty of economists that instruct on the college level that are Keynesian, Austrian, Marxian, Syndicalist, etc. The only people who say shit like "if you ain't da free market, you don't know da economics" are fucktards that live on the Ludwig von Mises institute and haven't gone on in economics past their undergrad.

 

keynesianism, marxian, and obviously 'syndicalist' have been completely discredited.

[CILONE/SK]

It amazes me how narrow minded AOD is for his own point of view. It seems that he thinks he has all the answers and if we just went along with his thought process, we will be living in utopia.

[angelofdeath]

i thought i had a more complete response about a social contract until this society v state element came up.

yes, i am framing them as one thing, i don't know how american society could exist without the constitution or the government that is loosely guided by it.

 

google defines society:

1.The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.

2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.

 

both of those require some sort of agreement by a majority or a leader (government or state) as to what is beneficial to the group.

 

yes?

 

i'll let the person this was addressed to respond fully, but...

i dont think 'order' requires a state or government at all. nor to customs, etc need to be given to people from down on high.

i see individuals not groups. if people want to voluntarily interact, that is their choice. i dont think a monopoly on force with official sanction to use legal violence against people who have aggressed against no one, is needed to tell individuals what to do.

[cunt sauce]

keynesianism, marxian, and obviously 'syndicalist' have been completely discredited.

 

links or it didn't happen.

 

Why don't you refute the libertarian critique (from an anarchist perspective) in the other thread?

[angelofdeath]

check out and discuss: The Myths of "Libertarian" Economics

 

i'd rather run by nuts over a cheese grater, but i'll say this and move on:

 

the marxist labor theory of value is completely false, and the subjective theory of value is correct, because your thread has absolutely no value to me. if LTV is correct, i would have to agree it has value.

consumers wants and needs are subjective. period.

 

if you dont believe that, try telling your boss that you think digging a foundation for a house with a teaspoon is just as effective and valuable as me using a back hoe.

[CILONE/SK]

Is this thread even about ronnie paulie anymore? Or is it about the AOD and Aussie Francis make believe world?

 

Even their so-called Libertarian thoughts are diverging from Ron Pauls. Also, I find if very hypocritical that AOD does not even vote, yet he has such a large opinion about politics.

 

When was the last time any of you have discussed how he is doing on his campaign or anything else related to it??

[Fist 666]

i think we decided a while ago that it made just as much sense to discuss/debate libertarian theory in the ron paul thread, instead of starting a new thread.