So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Are you voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Yes
52
31%
No
91
54%
No, I'm a neocon
5
3%
Yes, and I coded the voting machine; expect a landslide
20
12%
 
Total votes: 168

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby zenten » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:11 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:
Rysto wrote:
Umlaut wrote:Yes, gold is subject to inflation, but it inflates at a much steadier rate than any fiat currency does.

Say what? This is ridiculously wrong. The two main variables that determine the inflation rate are the money supply at the real GDP of the economy. Real GDP is basically outside of the control of the central bank(in the US, the Federal Reserve). Under a gold standard, the amount of gold available is the money supply -- and the central bank has no control over the supply of gold, either. This means that under a gold standard, the inflation rate is entirely out of the control of the central bank.

In a fiat currency system, however, the money supply is under the direct control of the central bank. Consequently, the inflation rate is under the direct control of the central bank. Here in Canada, the Bank of Canada has kept inflation between 1% and 3% for well over a decade to great success. The resulting stability has done wonders for our economy. Switching to a gold standard would throw all that away.

I agree with most of what you are saying in my post. I don't want the government controlling the money supply. Gold is an excellent store of value, as its value (not currency worth) doesn't change due to GDP fluctuation. Also, I just said gold isn't the best solution here. There just isn't enough of it anymore to account for the world economy.

the Ronpaul has stated that he'd authorize the treasury to print certificates backed directly by gold. These would compete with current FRNs, but there just wouldn't be as many of them. Basically, the president just doesn't have enough direct power to fuck everything as much as everyone thinks the Ronpaul could.

RE: fusion to make gold. There are currently approximately 125000 tons of gold (valued at $2.3 trillion) above ground. Fusion will not dent that.


Backing against the number of stars in the sky might work better.

Rysto
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Rysto » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:16 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:I agree with most of what you are saying in my post. I don't want the government controlling the money supply.

And that's why the Federal Reserve is not an agency of the federal government -- specifically to make it as apolitical as possible while still making it accountable to the government.

Edit: Besides, it's far better to have the money supply under the control of the government than it is to have it fluctuating completely randomly. The government, at least, has some incentive to keep things stable.

User avatar
Eleyras
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:56 am UTC
Location: the computer lab

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Eleyras » Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:46 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:the Ronpaul has stated that he'd authorize the treasury to print certificates backed directly by gold. These would compete with current FRNs, but there just wouldn't be as many of them. Basically, the president just doesn't have enough direct power to fuck everything as much as everyone thinks the Ronpaul could.
Exactly.

Given that the Ronpaul is all cosy with the constitution, he won't do like Bush and attempt to get more power for the presidency. However crazy he is, Congress will sit as a big check and balance on his power, and that's as it should be.
At some point, I will remember to sig quotes I find amusing or something.

...once I stop laughing.

User avatar
just john
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:11 pm UTC
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby just john » Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:55 am UTC

I already voted for the Ronpaul for President, in 1988.

I'm not a registered Republican, so in this state, I can't. Not that I would if I could, 'cuz that would mean an open primary, so I'd go for Edwards, Kucinich or Dodd.
* Radio Free Entropy: http://just-john.com/jjMusic

User avatar
Melissa63l
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Melissa63l » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:49 am UTC

If I could move to New Hampshire in time to vote in their primaries, then every other state to vote in *theirs*, I would. And every single vote would be for the Ronpaul. (Actually, I would not do this, as it would be cheating, but I might like to.)

I certainly don't agree with everything the man says, but he's the only politician in the whole bunch who doesn't make me feel nauseated.

Allowing money backed with actual value (whether it be gold, silver, or any other hard commodity) to compete with the peter-pan "I believe in it so it's real" money would be a great way of allowing people to decide for themselves what sort of money they wish to have. Unlike the current laws in the US, which make it illegal to use gold or silver as a currency, merely so that nobody will *notice* how much the government is screwing us. There is no reason on earth that a private entity (like the federal reserve) should be able to print their own money with no value behind it. Federal banks have been abolished twice already in the history of our country, so it's hardly as crazy as it sounds to some.

He is pro-life, personally, with which I don't necessarily agree, but isn't trying make more laws about it, merely keep the federal government out of what should be, on the whole, a state matter. This, and his religious views, make me slightly nervous, but as has been pointed out, there isn't much he can do about it even if he *is* elected.

Getting out of the WTO and other such "free trade" organizations is not his way of curtailing trade, but helping us towards *truly* free trade. Trade organizations often push through protectionist tarriffs, which mainly hurt the consumer, by taking away their choice to buy something cheaper (and thus saving them money) from overseas. Raising tarriffs on foreign cars might help a domestic car company here or there, but it hurts all the millions of people who are trying to *buy* a car, by giving them less choice, and only more expensive options.

He was against the war in Iraq, and wants to bring our troops home from around the world. However, he was *for* going into Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden, the actual perpetrator of 9/11. I can definitely respect someone who will fight back against people who *have* attacked us, but not get into messy wars and nation-building with people who have done us no harm. Was Saddam a bad guy? Hell yeah. Did we have any right to invade a sovereign nation, topple their government, and put our own in? At the cost of American lives, taxpayer money, and our civil liberties here at home? Ummm... hmmm...

He is against the "Patriot" Act, (which should be, by all rights, called the "Bend over and take it" Act) and wants to keep the government out of our homes, out of our bedrooms, and as much out of our lives as possible.

From what little, admittedly, I understand about the "Net Neutrality" issue, his problem is not with the freedom of speech. His problem is that in no way should the government have any right to regulate the internet at all, and conceding that right (whether they choose to use it at this time or not) in the form of laws regarding it was more than he was willing to give. I've explained this part badly, but I'm sure a little research into his views would shine a light on the subject.

As for his "racism" and "gay bashing"... I've read the *entire* article where he is being "racist". It was written during the L.A. race riots, when much of the country thought we were in imminent danger of attack from within. I'd like to point out two things: 1. I believe I read somewhere (though I may be wrong, I've been doing a lot of research lately) that he didn't actually *write* this article, it was written for him, and 2. Much of it is factually correct. The percentage of African Americans who commit crimes are *hugely* disproportionate to their percentage of the population. Some of that may be credited to a racist, or at the very least non-impartial judicial system, and you may blame "the man" for keeping them "down", but numbers don't lie. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but... perhaps being factually correct, on occasion, might be more important than being Basically Decent?

I youtubed his interview at Google (an interesting watch, really!) and heard him say, point blank, that he is not against *any* free association between people, and they can call it whatever they want. I don't know his personal feelings, obviously, but I sincerely believe that he would protect "gay rights" just as he would anyone else's.

It is hardly fair to penalize the man for his followers' lunacy. Yes, some people who are crazy follow him. Some people who believe 9/11 was an inside job follow him. Some people who are racist follow him. It doesn't make him a "truther" or a member of the KKK.

Do you know who else follows the Ronpaul? People who believe our country is going bankrupt with all of our foreign entanglements and domestic fiscal policies. People who believe they can run their lives better than the government can. People who believe they do not belong to the state, and thus cannot morally be drafted, or be made to pay an income tax. Income tax is, after all, a concession that the government owns you and your time, and can take what it wants of both. People who are young and don't want to pay social security into a system that is sure to collapse.

Speaking of which, Paul is the only politician I've yet heard with a reasonable plan for Social Security. If we stop empire-building and focus that money on those who are dependant upon our nanny-state, while letting young people (like myself, and probably many here) opt out into private retirement plans... we just might be able to take care of those who need it, while not pulling our younger generations deeper and deeper into a game they cannot win. It would not put grandma out on the street, so don't start with me about how heartless and evil I am (or Paul is, or anyone else who expects people to be self-reliant.) But come on, honestly, how many people here under the age of thirty would count on the government to take care of them when they're old? Surely I'm not the only one who is already saving and planning for retirement at a relatively young age? I wouldn't trust the federal government (or state, or county, or city) to watch my bicycle for me, never mind placing my future finances in their greasy grubby hands! Right now, I write off all social-security and medicare taxes as a loss. I have no expectation (nor should I) of ever seeing that money again.

It's funny how many people think, when the government screws something up, that the answer is *more* government, more regulation, more bureaucracy. I can give you a prime example: FEMA. Who did more good after Hurricane Katrina? Private organizations like the Red Cross and various churches, volunteer organizations, and individuals... or FEMA? Yet which gets *more* funding for doing a piss-ass job?

I think the most important thing to remember about the Ronpaul is this: As president, he will not step outside the constitution. He will bring our troops home immediately (which he has the power to do as Commander-In-Chief. All of his other goals and plans require some modicum of cooperation from the legislative branch, and would be done over time. He isn't going to walk into the oval office and start dismantling our government. He might like to... hell, *I* might like him to... but the road to freedom, self-reliance, and small-government is a long one, especially since we have gone so far from it.

Melissa S. Lepley
Sometimes it's love, sometimes it's lust... sometimes it's Tuesday.

Aaahhh... a month of Tuesdays.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby fjafjan » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:51 am UTC

Melissa63l wrote:I certainly don't agree with everything the man says, but he's the only politician in the whole bunch who doesn't make me feel nauseated.
Because...?

Allowing money backed with actual value (whether it be gold, silver, or any other hard commodity) to compete with the peter-pan "I believe in it so it's real" money would be a great way of allowing people to decide for themselves what sort of money they wish to have. Unlike the current laws in the US, which make it illegal to use gold or silver as a currency, merely so that nobody will *notice* how much the government is screwing us. There is no reason on earth that a private entity (like the federal reserve) should be able to print their own money with no value behind it. Federal banks have been abolished twice already in the history of our country, so it's hardly as crazy as it sounds to some.[/quote]
Yes it fucking is, and the fact that it's backed by gold does not make it more or less "real". Do you think gold as some value besides that people think it's nice and shiny and valuable? The same reason people think dollars are valuable, minus the shiny. Except on the downside there is no way to manage the value or gold as to control inflation thus making it more likely the economy will go haywild as it did every now and then before federal reserve, ie the depression.
Again, why do you think no one has this gold based stuff? Because it's a bad idea!
As is having serveral currencies at the same time, how much is this worth, how much is that worth, sorry we don't take copper. It's not a good idea either.

He is pro-life, personally, with which I don't necessarily agree, but isn't trying make more laws about it, merely keep the federal government out of what should be, on the whole, a state matter. This, and his religious views, make me slightly nervous, but as has been pointed out, there isn't much he can do about it even if he *is* elected.

He can appoint wacky wacky judges, if he gets elected it's almost certain Roe vs Wade will get overturned since it would only take one more "pro life" judge to do so. Which would mean abortion would be made illegal in a number of states.

Getting out of the WTO and other such "free trade" organizations is not his way of curtailing trade, but helping us towards *truly* free trade. Trade organizations often push through protectionist tarriffs, which mainly hurt the consumer, by taking away their choice to buy something cheaper (and thus saving them money) from overseas. Raising tarriffs on foreign cars might help a domestic car company here or there, but it hurts all the millions of people who are trying to *buy* a car, by giving them less choice, and only more expensive options.
And yet these orgnizations protect things like patents which maintains the value of the whole software industry (I mean it would have some value none the less but alot lower) and other simular industries. Trade needs a framework and it needs rules, infact it WANTS them, pepole want rules to protect them from robbery etc. As is Trade favoued when some practises are illegal, when people know that what they buy is not going to kill them.

He was against the war in Iraq, and wants to bring our troops home from around the world. However, he was *for* going into Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden, the actual perpetrator of 9/11. I can definitely respect someone who will fight back against people who *have* attacked us, but not get into messy wars and nation-building with people who have done us no harm. Was Saddam a bad guy? Hell yeah. Did we have any right to invade a sovereign nation, topple their government, and put our own in? At the cost of American lives, taxpayer money, and our civil liberties here at home? Ummm... hmmm...

Yes and a broken clock is right two times a day.
Plenty of people were against going into Iraq, for example "9/11 truthers". Electing one of them into office because they were against Iraq along with most sensible polititians is not sensible.

He is against the "Patriot" Act, (which should be, by all rights, called the "Bend over and take it" Act) and wants to keep the government out of our homes, out of our bedrooms, and as much out of our lives as possible.

Except when it comes to god, in which case he thinks the constitution mentions god whcih it doesn't and it's fine to "put god back in school".

From what little, admittedly, I understand about the "Net Neutrality" issue, his problem is not with the freedom of speech. His problem is that in no way should the government have any right to regulate the internet at all, and conceding that right (whether they choose to use it at this time or not) in the form of laws regarding it was more than he was willing to give. I've explained this part badly, but I'm sure a little research into his views would shine a light on the subject.
So he has a bad policy, but he uses BS to justify it so it's okey? Doesn't sound like a revolutionizing polititian to me.

As for his "racism" and "gay bashing"... I've read the *entire* article where he is being "racist". It was written during the L.A. race riots, when much of the country thought we were in imminent danger of attack from within. I'd like to point out two things: 1. I believe I read somewhere (though I may be wrong, I've been doing a lot of research lately) that he didn't actually *write* this article, it was written for him

In which case it was REALLY stupid of him to have it published in his name. If it's written in his name and he signed it it better represent his opinions.
, and 2. Much of it is factually correct. The percentage of African Americans who commit crimes are *hugely* disproportionate to their percentage of the population.
95% is factually correct? Jesus fucking christ do you actually BELIEVE this? Did you read the reason he wrote 95%?
Some of that may be credited to a racist, or at the very least non-impartial judicial system, and you may blame "the man" for keeping them "down", but numbers don't lie. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but... perhaps being factually correct, on occasion, might be more important than being Basically Decent?

Except it's not factually correct. What IS factually correct is that a completely innocent black person will get hassled by the police atleast twice as much as a completely innocent white person and calling the police "the man" thus trying to affiliate me with hippies and druggies does not make that any less true, any black person will tell you this and any serious study will tell you this.

I youtubed his interview at Google (an interesting watch, really!) and heard him say, point blank, that he is not against *any* free association between people, and they can call it whatever they want. I don't know his personal feelings, obviously, but I sincerely believe that he would protect "gay rights" just as he would anyone else's.

Except ofcourse in policy where he would not allow gays to serve in the military because either he thinks being gay is disruptive, or he thinks all gays are disruptive. Either way it's biggoted and dumb.

It is hardly fair to penalize the man for his followers' lunacy. Yes, some people who are crazy follow him. Some people who believe 9/11 was an inside job follow him. Some people who are racist follow him. It doesn't make him a "truther" or a member of the KKK.
Nope, but he has blatantly pandered to these people in the past and refuses to disown them, usually if you get massive support from people you don't want yourself assosiated with you will return the money, but not Paulie.

Do you know who else follows the Ronpaul? People who believe our country is going bankrupt with all of our foreign entanglements and domestic fiscal policies. People who believe they can run their lives better than the government can.
Well how wrong those people are, and hey, you know the best way to countact debt? Increase income ASWELL as decrease spending. Taxing the wealthiest more and reducing some military spending would cover up defecit at once.

People who believe they do not belong to the state, and thus cannot morally be drafted, or be made to pay an income tax. Income tax is, after all, a concession that the government owns you and your time, and can take what it wants of both.
No it isn't, paying income tax is to pay for the system you use and benefit from. You drive roads, need educated people to provide you with advanced services like electricity and "the interwebs" etc and don't have anarchy and various other thing the goverment provides and since you profit from this by income you are obliged to pay for it aswell. It's not sensationally difficult.

People who are young and don't want to pay social security into a system that is sure to collapse.

Interesting you write "people who are young", because while it's true that young people don't need social security most old people do. And infact, most young people will become old people.

Speaking of which, Paul is the only politician I've yet heard with a reasonable plan for Social Security. If we stop empire-building and focus that money on those who are dependant upon our nanny-state, while letting young people (like myself, and probably many here) opt out into private retirement plans... we just might be able to take care of those who need it, while not pulling our younger generations deeper and deeper into a game they cannot win.

While I am not very familiar with social security I am curious how this would solve the problem, less income into a system would seem to mean MORE collapse, not less.
It would not put grandma out on the street, so don't start with me about how heartless and evil I am (or Paul is, or anyone else who expects people to be self-reliant.)
I'd say it's evil and heartless if the consequences are predictable but it's pushed through on an ideallogical basis. So if it leads to millions of people homeless and starving but it FEELS right.

But come on, honestly, how many people here under the age of thirty would count on the government to take care of them when they're old? Surely I'm not the only one who is already saving and planning for retirement at a relatively young age?
Well I don't have any income yet as I am a student.
I wouldn't trust the federal government (or state, or county, or city) to watch my bicycle for me, never mind placing my future finances in their greasy grubby hands!
Yes, only people in goverment as Greedy grubby bastards.

Right now, I write off all social-security and medicare taxes as a loss. I have no expectation (nor should I) of ever seeing that money again.
Well considering that you are somewhere around middle class that is to be expected.

It's funny how many people think, when the government screws something up, that the answer is *more* government, more regulation, more bureaucracy. I can give you a prime example: FEMA. Who did more good after Hurricane Katrina? Private organizations like the Red Cross and various churches, volunteer organizations, and individuals... or FEMA? Yet which gets *more* funding for doing a piss-ass job?

Well part of the reason FEMA is shitty is because it's managed by someone who like you think FEMA shouldn't exist, appointed there by Bush, who like the Ronpaul is more ideallogue than realist.
I think the most important thing to remember about the Ronpaul is this: As president, he will not step outside the constitution. He will bring our troops home immediately (which he has the power to do as Commander-In-Chief. All of his other goals and plans require some modicum of cooperation from the legislative branch, and would be done over time. He isn't going to walk into the oval office and start dismantling our government. He might like to... hell, *I* might like him to... but the road to freedom, self-reliance, and small-government is a long one, especially since we have gone so far from it.

Melissa S. Lepley
[/quote]
Except whre he disagrees with the constitution like mentioned on page one and onward where he find some amendments constitutional and some not so, thus meaning he trusts the judgement of Supreme Paul and not the Supreme Court.

I think the most important thing to remember about the Ronpaul is this: He is fifteen thousand times more crazy than you might first think.

Hey here is another thing, he wants to bring back Letters of Marque.
Letter of margue, you might say, what the hell is that?
Well it's like a license to kill issued by the goverment to private contractor, basically funding pirates and terrorists to kill other terrorists. A bit like blackwater except they won't be in as close contact with the military and not under any oversight. It's not like funding terrorists have ever gone horrible wrong in the past, or like they will massacre people like all lawless militias have in the past?
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Umlaut » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:29 am UTC

Gold has value that doesn't just go away for no obvious reason, so it is more reliable than FRNs.

Roe v. Wade is none of the federal government's fucking business is what it is. All it would take is one more judge who understands that constitution to overthrow it.

The WTO doesn't work quite as well as you think it does.

He was against going to Iraq for all the right reasons though. It's not a reason by itself, but he's just as good as all the others who voted against the war for single-issue voters.

A) What? B) He doesn't care what happens in schools, actually. the Ronpaul wants to allow parents to choose how to educate their own children, so if a school wants to teach about Jesus making out with Superman, so be it. If people get to choose where their kids go, it doesn't make a difference.

Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet. It is the federal government forcing providers to do something that they otherwise wouldn't. I think this is the most misunderstood issue by some of the most intelligent folk around. If Comcast is fucking your bit torrent speeds CHANGE FUCKING PROVIDERS. Net neutrality would make that illegal, but why? Because you are too lazy to brows your ass over to speakeasy.com and get a new connecting. I have nothing but pity for you.

Racism? I'll have to look more into it, but it will not affect his policies in any way. Even if he hates some group, he isn't going to do a damn thing about it.

Actually, he said that if a soldier being gay causes a problem, they should be kicked out, just like if the sexuality of any other soldier is a problem. He's not gay-bashing, just being a rational person.

Panders? When?

Punishing the largest producers disproportionately? Sounds like a great plan. Wait, what happens when trillions of dollars move overseas to avoid the preposterous taxes? If you have an equal vote, you should have an equal cost of membership.

People will educate themselves. I know this because I will make it worth their while by paying a larger amount for their superior services. I can also pay for the roads I use by paying a tax on tires for instance, instead of subsidizing your roads with my money. Also, road subsidies distort the price of goods, and that's pretty retarded. It's not sensationally difficult.

And the old will keep getting their checks while the young can invest their money for themselves.

The idea is that social security can still take care of the people who actually need it while it is slowly phased out and privatized. Some people chose to rely on social security, and any plan to remove their crutch has to take care of those people.

The thing is that people in the government have no special ability to handle money. They have one particular skill in common, and that is to get elected. Would you trust someone who has made for themselves billions or someone who has merely endeared himself to a slight majority of the population (most of whom voted on party, not merit)? I'd say that one group is more reliable than the other, and not by an insignificant margin. People who make large sums of money end up in a lot of trouble if they do something everyone thinks is wrong. What happens to a politician who does the same deed?

The problem is basically that that is completely retarded. There is no better way to put it. Maybe let people take care of themselves or god forbid take care of each other without being forced to.

So it sounds like the organization is fatally flawed in that a shitty director can be appointed and still remain in power. In private companies, if you fuck up, you are out.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal. They would authorize the US military and private contractors to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan without committing to a war with the country itself; it isn't just a cash for nabbing Bin Laden.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby fjafjan » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:58 pm UTC

Gold has value that doesn't just go away for no obvious reason, so it is more reliable than FRNs.

And the US economy will?
Gold has the downside that if every dollar is supposed to be on ounce of gold how do you account for increase in real wealth?
You don't, possibly by deflation, which is why no serious economist will advocate the gold standard for a nation that is not in serious turmoil like perhaps Zimbabwe or something, and they would probably not have the base cost to cover for it.

Roe v. Wade is none of the federal government's fucking business is what it is. All it would take is one more judge who understands that constitution to overthrow it.

Yes obviously you and the Ronpaul know the constitution better than say Barrack Obama who was a professor in the subject and doesn't sprout baseless lies like "god is mentioned in the constitution".
It's not unconstitutional since it's about the personal freedom of women.

Racism? I'll have to look more into it, but it will not affect his policies in any way. Even if he hates some group, he isn't going to do a damn thing about it.

Which is actually a problem since racism is still a very real problem, more likely he will support bad ideas that appeal to racists and biggots and make the problem worse since he has already shown he is not only ignorant of the problem like alot of people on these fora but also a direct part of the problem.


Actually, he said that if a soldier being gay causes a problem, they should be kicked out, just like if the sexuality of any other soldier is a problem. He's not gay-bashing, just being a rational person.

He said that in defense of his position of NOT LETTING ANY OPENLY GAY PEOPLE IN THE MILITARY.
That's like saying "Women should not be allowed to vote, because if a woman is a criminal she just like a man should not be allowed to vote".
It would make sense if all Women/gays were criminals/disruptive but they are NOT so it DOESN'T. I'm shocked all the Randdroids are eating this up.


Panders? When?

Like that racism thing earlier? What voter groups do you think like it when their congressman claims 95% of black people are criminals? it's not the soccer moms.


Punishing the largest producers disproportionately? Sounds like a great plan. Wait, what happens when trillions of dollars move overseas to avoid the preposterous taxes? If you have an equal vote, you should have an equal cost of membership.

The benefits are not equal, they are favoured to the wealthiest who employ more educated people, use the roads more, etc etc. Premium membership costs premium fee. And the taxes are hardly preposterous, the income is, the wealthiest 10% make today ALOT more than they did ten years ago, upper middle to lower have not seen that development.


I'd say that one group is more reliable than the other, and not by an insignificant margin.

One of them has managed to profit himself HUGELY most likely at the cost of someone else, they are usually very disconnected from most people by living in "super suburbs". Putting them in power sure sounds like a great idea? Not to mention that your disdain for democracy is appalling.
People who make large sums of money end up in a lot of trouble if they do something everyone thinks is wrong

this bit just Baffles me, you realise that for polititians this is INCREDIBLY true, Bill Clinton having an affair was terrible. OJ murdering his wife might have destroyed/damaged his PR but untill he got himself in trouble again he was a free man, and the same can be said for plenty of other billionaires, like Michael Jackson who most likely is a pedophile. Those two are people in the public light which brings it to another point, politians are under scrutony, usually they get found out. Private billionaires not nearly so much.
What happens to a politician who does the same deed?

Excepting public policy where controversy is bound to occur a polititian say, stealing, or just cheating on his wife can be devestating. Does that mean they never do bad thing? Hell no, but atleast there are people watching which with the private industry not nearly as much, there is usually takes a "squeler" and they are punished harshly, listened to a guy from the drug industry who had stepped up to tax evasion and generally shabby business by the companies he was employed by (had been in on boards, I think VP but not sure). And surprise, he had not be able to get employed again, surving the public good rather than the private good had not served him well.

The problem is basically that that is completely retarded. There is no better way to put it. Maybe let people take care of themselves or god forbid take care of each other without being forced to.

No it's not, it's a reasonable policy. That is why it exists in nearly every civilized society I can think of.


So it sounds like the organization is fatally flawed in that a shitty director can be appointed and still remain in power. In private companies, if you fuck up, you are out.

This isn't really true, never heard of companies where a director shows up, drives the company into the ground, leaves with a massive compensation and gets hired at some other company and does the whole thing over again, it's not rare.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal. They would authorize the US military and private contractors to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan without committing to a war with the country itself; it isn't just a cash for nabbing Bin Laden.

Yeah it's a really bad idea, like, it's completely and utterly dumb. Other nations would start issuing them and make it even easier for the goverment to go to war without going to war thus requiring the approval of congress. Yet he claims to be a "constitutionalist".
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Yakk » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:04 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:Gold has value that doesn't just go away for no obvious reason, so it is more reliable than FRNs.

Roe v. Wade is none of the federal government's fucking business is what it is. All it would take is one more judge who understands that constitution to overthrow it.


I suppose you are also against everything justified by the commerce clause?

How about forcing the US government to follow treaties signed with Indian tribes centuries ago? Even if they give away entire states or more? (note that treaties are the "supreme law of the land").

Net Neutrality is regulation of the internet. It is the federal government forcing providers to do something that they otherwise wouldn't. I think this is the most misunderstood issue by some of the most intelligent folk around. If Comcast is fucking your bit torrent speeds CHANGE FUCKING PROVIDERS. Net neutrality would make that illegal, but why? Because you are too lazy to brows your ass over to speakeasy.com and get a new connecting. I have nothing but pity for you.


Because:
The internet is driven by interoperability. If Comcast wants to fuck with bit torrent speeds why doesn't Comcast build it's own internet? There already is a network that is owned and run however the companies involved feel like -- SMS network on cell phones. Strangely, because of how it is run, it isn't nearly the huge driver of the economy that the internet is.

In addition the wires the internet runs on have special legal rights.

Racism? I'll have to look more into it, but it will not affect his policies in any way. Even if he hates some group, he isn't going to do a damn thing about it.


Why wouldn't he?

I'm serious. Why wouldn't he appoint racist judges, friends, and cronies?

Punishing the largest producers disproportionately? Sounds like a great plan. Wait, what happens when trillions of dollars move overseas to avoid the preposterous taxes? If you have an equal vote, you should have an equal cost of membership.


And an equal benefit from membership. Having a stable economy and a functioning society makes it much easier to make money.

People will educate themselves. I know this because I will make it worth their while by paying a larger amount for their superior services. I can also pay for the roads I use by paying a tax on tires for instance, instead of subsidizing your roads with my money. Also, road subsidies distort the price of goods, and that's pretty retarded. It's not sensationally difficult.


Have you ever even heard of the term "public good"? Have you ever even heard of "transaction costs"?

The idea is that social security can still take care of the people who actually need it while it is slowly phased out and privatized. Some people chose to rely on social security, and any plan to remove their crutch has to take care of those people.


Social Security isn't a problem -- it is in fine financial shape: any reasonable projection places it at the point where it starts cashing in US bonds that it loaned to the government in many decades from now, and any "running out of money" point where is has to start borrowing money from the US government to keep operating happens so far in the future that people who claim to project economic trends that far are on crack.

The US Medicare system is the problem. Old age medical care, under the current "zero marginal cost for the consumer" model with controls on price, is the problem. (Markets only work if their messages get to the people making decisions).

So it sounds like the organization is fatally flawed in that a shitty director can be appointed and still remain in power. In private companies, if you fuck up, you are out.


In private companies, if you fuck up, and manage not to deflect the blame, and it wouldn't look bad for the company, you are out. And when the company goes belly-up...

Letters of Marque and Reprisal. They would authorize the US military and private contractors to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan without committing to a war with the country itself; it isn't just a cash for nabbing Bin Laden.


And when people issue letters of Marque against the US president and US assets, is that not an act of war?

Treaties where signed to stop the Marque letter game, because it led to poorly-controlled military forces randomly pillaging each other.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Rysto
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Rysto » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:34 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:Gold has value that doesn't just go away for no obvious reason, so it is more reliable than FRNs.

Tell that to 16th-Century Spain.

User avatar
just john
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:11 pm UTC
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby just john » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:43 pm UTC

(Are they still at 16th.cent.spain@gmail.com?)

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Umlaut » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:02 pm UTC

Roe v. Wade:
This isn't at all covered in the Constitution. The main debate in abortion is when fucking leads to a human being. Since the Constitution doesn't spell that out, the feds can't make laws about it without some amending.

Gold:
It has some problems, but it is more reliable than the federal reserve, the cornerstone of the current world economy. Right now, if the US is in trouble, everyone is in trouble.

Side note:
The commerce clause is used to justify the gun free schools act. How does that affect interstate commerce one bit? Also, it justifies the EPA. What business does the federal government have regulating a frog, which for reasons unknown, spends its entire life in California?

One more:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the supreme court has said as much on several occasions. That said, what was done to the natives was atrocious. The colonists and later the US government didn't take the time to learn that they had their own sovereign nation going on, and we all fucked them over. Now, if they had been savages like we thought, I'd have no problem with it (before you freak out about that, learn what a savage actually is).

Net Neutrality:
Comcast did build its own. You accessing the rest of the internet via their little part of it. If they want to make your access slow, it is their choice. I do object to their denial of bittorrent throttling, as they are misleading consumers, but actually doing it is their own business.

Racism:
It looks like there isn't a lot to say about it. Of course, the president still doesn't have the authority to do anything about it, so it is still moot. Even trying to appoint racists as judges, if anyone acts on it, they will be thrown out.

Taxes:
All those benefits apply equally to rich and poor. It makes it easier for everyone. Does a rich man have 500 times the police watching over him (it's actually more like a quarter as many)? Does he use the roads 500 times as much (that is a lot of fucking driving)? Yes, he's obviously better off, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with taxes.

Roads:
I'll just restate this one. Why not have people pay for the roads that they use? Farm subsidies are the same problem. Services should be worth what they actually cost along with a profit for the best providers of the service.

Social security:
I never said it was in bad financial shape. It isn't yet. Social security is simply retarded. It doesn't pay off as well as any sort of IRA, so why keep using it? Social security doesn't have any money at all, that isn't how it works. It pays into the general fund and pays out of it. There is now secret stash of social security money somewhere. Of course, in the next ten or twenty years, it will start paying out more than is being paid in.

Private vs. Government:
You all have a pretty seriously flawed world view about this. What actually happened to Bill Clinton? What actually happened to the guys at Enron? One is living in a fucking penthouse in New York after committing perjury. Which one is it? Also, OJ didn't get off because of a good lawyer or because of his money, he got off because the arresting officers were jerk-offs. Where do you think they are now (hint: STILL PUBLIC OFFICIALS). Government agencies have so little accountability it hurts. I trust the Ronpaul to do what he says he will more than any other politician.

Gays:
He said "don't ask, don't tell" is a fine policy as long as it applies to everyone. If your sexuality becomes a problem, you should be kicked out. Even if you read it somehow to be no gays in the military, it has no bearing on gay marriage or other association. the Ronpaul has said frequently that people can freely associate all they want and call it what they want, the federal government has no business in it.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal:
Groups of terrorists can't issue these. Also, there are very specific circumstances that have to be filled for them to ever be issued. You need to understand the issue before arguing it. A Letter of Reprisal is issued when an individual or group, sovereign or not, violates the rules of war (the Geneva convention). This happened on 9/11 when some people FLEW FUCKING PLANES INTO CIVILIAN BUILDINGS. Reprisal is a limited act to punish only those responsible. Letters of Marque wouldn't come in, as they are for pillaging civilian ships of a country we're at war with (of which there should be none).
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby zenten » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:19 pm UTC

Umlaut: So what you're saying is that your country's federal constitution is broken, in that it doesn't cover many things it should?

After all, most if not all of what you're describing *should* be handled at the country level, not regional or municipal level, at least in terms of fundamental rules. What constitutes a person for instance has to be at the federal level, or else no federal laws can cover people.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Malice » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:24 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:Gays:
He said "don't ask, don't tell" is a fine policy as long as it applies to everyone. If your sexuality becomes a problem, you should be kicked out. Even if you read it somehow to be no gays in the military, it has no bearing on gay marriage or other association. the Ronpaul has said frequently that people can freely associate all they want and call it what they want, the federal government has no business in it.


The first problem with that is that "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't applied to heterosexuals. I'm sure that people in the military are allowed to talk about women, sex, girlfriends, wives...

The second problem is, there's nothing wrong with "If your sexuality becomes a problem, you should be kicked out" (note: as long as it is you creating that problem, not somebody else); the issue is more that it's a weasel answer the Ronpaul gave in response to the question, "Should gays be allowed openly in the military?"
What he said is a bit like saying, in response to the question, "Should fruit be allowed in my fridge?", "If there are rotten foods, be they fruits or vegetables, they shouldn't be in the fridge." It doesn't answer the question. It's a weasel answer.

What reason might the Ronpaul have to give a weasel answer? Either he's trying to hide his approval of homosexuality from the (Republican) voters, for fear it would be unpopular; or he's trying to hide his dislike of homosexuality from the (other) voters, for fear it would be unpopular.
Now, the odd thing is that Paul isn't afraid to express other opinions which, due to their being batshit insane, might also be unpopular.

So, either way, he's being a dishonest weasel-person; and there's a good chance that what he's hiding is a negative view of homosexuality (especially considering he's shown himself to be close-minded on the subject of race).

Speaking of which, the idea that it simultaneously doesn't matter if we elect a racist president because he doesn't have the power to put his racism into practice and that it matters if we elect him president because he does have the power to put his ideas into practice is absurd. Either the president has no affect at all on the country, in which case you should vote for somebody with better hair, or the president has a significant effect on the country, in which case you should vote for somebody who is much less likely to be a racist and a homophobe.
Image

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Gunfingers » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:31 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Umlaut: So what you're saying is that your country's federal constitution is broken, in that it doesn't cover many things it should?

After all, most if not all of what you're describing *should* be handled at the country level, not regional or municipal level, at least in terms of fundamental rules. What constitutes a person for instance has to be at the federal level, or else no federal laws can cover people.


The US is founded on a fear of a strong Federal government. We want as much as possible handled at lower levels, or not handled by the government at all.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby zenten » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:34 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:
zenten wrote:Umlaut: So what you're saying is that your country's federal constitution is broken, in that it doesn't cover many things it should?

After all, most if not all of what you're describing *should* be handled at the country level, not regional or municipal level, at least in terms of fundamental rules. What constitutes a person for instance has to be at the federal level, or else no federal laws can cover people.


The US is founded on a fear of a strong Federal government. We want as much as possible handled at lower levels, or not handled by the government at all.


Yes, over 200 years ago. Since then other governments have formed, which have all looked at the successes and failure of your country, and decided accordingly. They all (or possibly almost all, there may be some exceptions) have opted for a stronger federal presence.

opsomath
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:58 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby opsomath » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:34 pm UTC

Melissa63l wrote: A bunch of awesome stuff.


Will you be my friend?

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby fjafjan » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:49 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:Roe v. Wade:
This isn't at all covered in the Constitution. The main debate in abortion is when fucking leads to a human being. Since the Constitution doesn't spell that out, the feds can't make laws about it without some amending.

the constitution doesn't spell out most things, that's why you have people interpeting it?

Gold:
It has some problems, but it is more reliable than the federal reserve, the cornerstone of the current world economy. Right now, if the US is in trouble, everyone is in trouble.

That would be true nomatter what the system unless it completely fucked up the American economy since America is by far the biggest developed nation and thus have the biggest economy. If a huge trading partner for alot of countries suddenly stop trading as much yes it will be bad for everone.
And please give some basis for your claim that it's more reliable with gold than the federal reserve. The economy has been relatively stable for more than 80 years, with gold there were serious depressions fairly regularily, those do not occur anymore. This is in large part due to the federal reserve being able to control interest rates and inflation so that it doesn't runaway.
Jesus this is like Econ 101, as are the roads down there aswell, any serious economist and real experiment willl tell you privatized roads are not efficient, read up on it.


One more:
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the supreme court has said as much on several occasions. That said, what was done to the natives was atrocious. The colonists and later the US government didn't take the time to learn that they had their own sovereign nation going on, and we all fucked them over. Now, if they had been savages like we thought, I'd have no problem with it (before you freak out about that, learn what a savage actually is).

I am almost willing to bet Money american foreign policy would fit your definition of a savage, atleast during Bush.



Racism:
It looks like there isn't a lot to say about it. Of course, the president still doesn't have the authority to do anything about it, so it is still moot. Even trying to appoint racists as judges, if anyone acts on it, they will be thrown out.

So you are now arguing
"the Ronpaul - He won't be able to do anything". You should read the topics I linked to in the PA fora earlier in this thread, turns out 'Shrodinger' was right.

Taxes:
All those benefits apply equally to rich and poor. It makes it easier for everyone. Does a rich man have 500 times the police watching over him (it's actually more like a quarter as many)? Does he use the roads 500 times as much (that is a lot of fucking driving)? Yes, he's obviously better off, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with taxes.

Again it seems you miss my point so let me paint a scenario
An average joe drives to work, recieved a public education and does not get robbed on his way to work.
CEO drives to work, etc etc.
HOWEVER he ALSO relies on that all his employees get to work, that his shipments don't get robbed, that if his accountaints were to try and screw him over the police would protect him. He requires a public education from almost all of his customers to be able to sell his product. The framework set up to try and encourage trade benefits him far more than it does than that average joe, why should they pay the same amount of money, that doesn't make sense.
You all have a pretty seriously flawed world view about this.

Oh man the irony.
What actually happened to Bill Clinton? What actually happened to the guys at Enron?

Okey lets get ths straight.
Guy 1 cheated on his wife. Yeah that's pretty shitty, but ALOT of guys do it and it's not actually illegal in most countries in the world, nor most states.
The other guys fucking tried to rob people of their savings.
HOW ARE THE TWO EVEN COMPARABLE?!
Also, OJ didn't get off because of a good lawyer or because of his money, he got off because the arresting officers were jerk-offs

This is just inaccurate, most black people in LA get treated far worse than OJ did (atleast at the time of his arrest)yet nearly no one of them get off. Why do you think that is? do you think that despite the obvious evidense present his DREAM TEAM of lawyers might have played a part? The awnser is yes, the reason those misstakes were NOTICED were because he had really good lawyers who checked the stuff out that they don't normally.
What about Michael Jackson? What about the CEOs of companies who knowingly poluted the enviorment in various places? Those people get away scott free, maybe their company have to pay a fine but they are not legally responsible for the actions of the corporation which is fucked up big time.

Where do you think they are now (hint: STILL PUBLIC OFFICIALS). Government agencies have so little accountability it hurts. I trust the Ronpaul to do what he says he will more than any other politician.

which his record of dong exactly the opposte of what he says he wants shows?
We need to cut down on federal spending he says, and is in the top 10% of getting federal money for his own state. He claims to be a christian but apparantly the motto of do unto others as youwould have them do unto you still misses him.

Gays:
He said "don't ask, don't tell" is a fine policy as long as it applies to everyone. If your sexuality becomes a problem, you should be kicked out. Even if you read it somehow to be no gays in the military, it has no bearing on gay marriage or other association. the Ronpaul has said frequently that people can freely associate all they want and call it what they want, the federal government has no business in it.

So you are claiming that the Ronpaul says heterosexuals should not be allowed to serve openly either?
Here is the problem.
Person A is serving in the military, they go to their sergent and say "Sir I am homosexual sir" and they get dismissed, doesn't matter if they never missbehave in the slightest, if they are openly gay they may not serve.
Person B goes to their sergent and says "Sir I am heterosexual Sir" and the mlitary couldn't care less.
This is NOT a consistant policy in terms of ignoring sexuality in federal policy because it does not ignore sexuality.
It's that simple. You are just regurgetating his argumnet that does not awnser the question, yes if your sexuality becomes a problem then you should not be allowed to serve, that is not the same as not leting homosexual serve unless you also claim that being homosexual is a problem.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal:
Groups of terrorists can't issue these. Also, there are very specific circumstances that have to be filled for them to ever be issued. You need to understand the issue before arguing it. A Letter of Reprisal is issued when an individual or group, sovereign or not, violates the rules of war (the Geneva convention). This happened on 9/11 when some people FLEW FUCKING PLANES INTO CIVILIAN BUILDINGS. Reprisal is a limited act to punish only those responsible. Letters of Marque wouldn't come in, as they are for pillaging civilian ships of a country we're at war with (of which there should be none).
[/quote]
Letters of Marque are exactly the phrase he used for what he wanted to issue, don't ask me how that would be appropriate but that's what he said. I am not the one defending the crazy.
Again I would suggest you read up on the relevant proposed legislation.
The issue of Marque and Reprisal was raised before Congress by Rep. the Ronpaul of Texas after the September 11, 2001 attacks[2], and again on July 21, 2007. Paul, defining the attacks as an act of "air piracy," introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, which would have granted the president the authority to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. Paul compared the terrorists to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[3]

So what is likely to occur is the previously mentioned scenario, "Team America" of private gun-nuts goes to France to hunt down some terrorist they heard of, end up shooting some civilians. Suddenly France is not so hot about America and there are serious diplomatic issues. This could occur anywhere. That is why giving people permission to hunt down people you don't like with whatever means necessary not a good idea because they will end up doing more harm than good.


Will you be my friend?

I fail to see how this is of any relevance, please keep your posts serious. This post would have been more suitable as a PM.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Umlaut » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:29 pm UTC

Yes, you have people interpret it. The problem there is that they need to fucking stop. Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states (if they want to regulate it) or the people.

With FRNs, it isn't about trade. An incredible number of goolds are pegged to a dollar that can fluctuate at the whim of a small group of people. Gold is hardly ideal, but it is better than nothing at all.

I didn't say privatized roads. I said that roads should be paid for by the people who use them through either a mileage tax or a tire tax. You use more tires, you put more wear on the roads, you pay more. It's better than the current method and not difficult to implement. Critical reading skills here, please.

Bush: savage is without society. Bush is just a complete jerk-off.

the Ronpaul - he won't be able to do anything racist. The president doesn't write laws, and everyone appointed is so heavily scrutinized that it should be a non-issue. Checks and balances work.

Wow. Now you are treating employees like inanimate objects. Those employees benefit from the job they have. They benefit from the protection of law. Because he is making better use of the framework for himself doesn't mean he should have to pay more. The government isn't protecting him any more than anyone else.

I could care less about Bill Clinton's dick. HE COMMITTED PERJURY. He lied to a court while under oath. That is why he was impeached. He told a bald-faced lie to a court and then went on with his life.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you? With government, I'd have them leave me the fuck alone. If I want to treat an individual differently, I fucking will on my own. The problem with altruism in government is that you inevitably force it on someone, and that is never OK. the Ronpaul won't force you to do anything, he won't force you to pay for things you don't use, and he won't force you to support people you don't want to support. You can't force people to be free.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

Rysto
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Rysto » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:33 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:Gold:
It has some problems, but it is more reliable than the federal reserve, the cornerstone of the current world economy. Right now, if the US is in trouble, everyone is in trouble.

Just because you say this doesn't make it so. The world's economy has been way more stable under fiat money systems than the Gold Standard. Your problem is that you are forcing your perception of reality to conform to your ideology, instead of adapting your ideology to conform to reality.

Common problem, especially among libertarians.

opsomath
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:58 pm UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby opsomath » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:43 pm UTC

I fail to see how this is of any relevance, please keep your posts serious. This post would have been more suitable as a PM.


Quite right, "serious business" after all. What I meant to say was,

"I think Melissa631 did an outstanding job of stating her reasons for supporting the Ronpaul, which happen to quite closely reflect my own."

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Umlaut » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:42 am UTC

Rysto wrote:The world's economy has been way more stable under fiat money systems than the Gold Standard.

So that is why my purchasing power per dollar has decreased at an unpredictable rate. Ok.

The gold standard works very well in a system without a huge amount of capital. I think that a gold note existing alongside the current FRN (as would be the case) would be a massive improvement over the current implementation.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

User avatar
Melissa63l
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Melissa63l » Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:26 am UTC

The problem with the Federal Reserve (and, by extension, fiat money) is that a bank can be authorized by the government to ... and I'll speak slowly here ... print. their. own. money.

They have as much right to do so as some guy in his basement with a photocopier.

Now, fjafjan, I know you cannot be reached by anything resembling reason, so I'll speak to whoever else might be reading this thread. I fully understand that you are a marxist revolution in and of yourself, but here I am speaking to my fellow oppressive capitalist pigs.

Money represents goods and services. In early cultures, people would barter with one another. They used their goods, (fish, goats, wheat, ears of corn, camels, whatever) services, (baking, farming, hunting, gathering, manual labor, etc.) to trade for whatever goods or services they lacked. This system worked, but was fairly clumsy. After all, how many eggs is a cow worth? What if I have the right amount of eggs, but you already have chickens of your own? Or what if I want to sell my cow, and want wheat in return, but all you have are beaver-skins? How many goats can I fit in my wallet?

People soon realized that they could use smaller, more commonly accepted, easier to carry (and less likely to spoil or bite) units of trade. Most cultures settled on precious metals such as gold and silver, while others used beads, shells, or other more convenient units of worth. Precious metals were the most popular, because unlike goats or camels, they require little upkeep, unlike bushels of corn, they are light and easily transported, and unlike beads or shells, they have their own intrensic worth. Soft metals such as silver and gold were easily molded into small, fairly uniform pieces (such as coins) and were valued for their beauty.

Where farmer Bob might not be willing to take eggs in return for a part of his harvest, he would take these small pieces of metal, knowing he could trade them at a later date for the goods he needed, or the services he required. These coins, valued by weight, could be used just as easily to pay the blacksmith as to buy a fish, to purchase a loaf of bread as to buy land from your neighbor. While they could not be eaten, or worn, or burned to keep warm, they were much more convenient than goats or slaves. Could you imagine making change? Thus was money born.

As time went on, these coins became more standardized and uniform, with a specific weight and relatively equal values. Yes, the influx of new sources of gold into an economy would cause temporary instability, but it worked fairly well.

Even with the introduction of paper money, each piece of paper was merely an "IOU" for a certain amount of gold held in a particular bank. Government-printed pieces of paper represented government-held solid currency, which in turn represented both an intrensic value of its own and the goods and services it could buy.

Now, you might ask: "So what's the problem with the government (or anyone else) printing more money? More money... yay!" And for a certain amount of time, it does seem like a good idea. More currency in circulation, more dollars floating around to be earned and spent and saved and invested... where is the bad?

Imagine you have two huge piles. In one stack, you have all of the dollars ($). In the other stack, you have all of the goods and services (GS). Now, $ = GS, because money is merely a representation of the things you want to *own*.

So, for example, if you add to the stack of GS, (through innovation, new industries, industrialization, hard work, new products, larger amounts of land being settled, etc.) and the number of $ remains the same, each $ is worth more GS. This rewards people who save, as the dollars they have in the bank can buy more GS as the economy grows. Their money has strengthened. This allows grandma and grandpa to live off of their savings and investments when they are old.

But what if we add to the stack of $? As the number of $ grow, if the stack of GS remains constant, each one of those dollars is worth less. Each dollar someone prints, whether it be a bank, or the government, or some guy in his basement, devalues the dollars in your wallet, in your savings account, in grandma and grandpa's pension.

Now, if the stack of GS can keep up with the stack of $, the currency remains steady, and nobody notices very much. If your dollar buys the same amount of bread today as it did twenty years ago... well... no problem. And since the price of things tends to go down, in the absense of inflation (because better methods are created for manufacturing goods, or there is less of a demand, and the market forces the price down) we all win. And what generally stops the stack of $ from going up too much? That's right, tying it to a hard currency.

Thus, for many years immediately following a change from hard currency to fiat money, assuming the makers of bits-of-paper are fairly conservative and not too greedy, no terrible effects are seen. No disasters or WWII German inflation. It is when the printers of fiat money start... (to modify the phrase) ...writing checks our economy can't cash, that we run into problems.

What we see happening in the US right now, as can easily be witnessed by the fact that the dollar is reaching new lows, is that the people who create *actual* wealth, in the form of goods and services, are being outdone by the people who create the bits of paper. The stack of $ is growing much faster than the stack of GS. If anyone would like to learn more about this subject, I suggest they reference "What Has Government Done To Our Money?" by Murray Rothbarad. Or just ask yourself: except in the fields of technology, where prices drop dramatically over time, do things cost the same as when you were younger? How many groceries would $10 buy now? Twenty years ago?

When grandma's pension can't pay her rent or buy her groceries, whose fault is it? The evil capitalists, for raising prices? Or the government that has made every dollar in her wallet worth less and less over years? Don't worry, the government will take care of her. Oh wait... since the government doesn't actually *earn* any money, or produce anything... that money must either come from us, in the form of taxes, or from us, through printing more money and adding to inflation. Interesting, isn't it? How the answer to the government's mistakes meddling with our currency are being paid by every single one of us?

Gold wasn't perfect, not by any means. Any hard currency is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as anything else on the market. It should be pointed out, however, that the Ronpaul (yes, see, I do remember what this thread is about) is not trying to abolish the fed in one fell swoop and change all of our money back to gold. He merely wants to let hard currency compete in the free market against fiat. He wants to make it legal again to own gold, and to trade with money backed by actual value, not just government promises.
Sometimes it's love, sometimes it's lust... sometimes it's Tuesday.



Aaahhh... a month of Tuesdays.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby zenten » Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:40 pm UTC

Melissa63 wrote:When grandma's pension can't pay her rent or buy her groceries, whose fault is it? The evil capitalists, for raising prices? Or the government that has made every dollar in her wallet worth less and less over years? Don't worry, the government will take care of her. Oh wait... since the government doesn't actually *earn* any money, or produce anything... that money must either come from us, in the form of taxes, or from us, through printing more money and adding to inflation. Interesting, isn't it? How the answer to the government's mistakes meddling with our currency are being paid by every single one of us?


Well, the government does earn money, through corporations it owns. But yeah, most of it is through taxes. I thought I would just point that out though.

Melissa63l wrote:
Gold wasn't perfect, not by any means. Any hard currency is subject to the same laws of supply and demand as anything else on the market. It should be pointed out, however, that the Ronpaul (yes, see, I do remember what this thread is about) is not trying to abolish the fed in one fell swoop and change all of our money back to gold. He merely wants to let hard currency compete in the free market against fiat. He wants to make it legal again to own gold, and to trade with money backed by actual value, not just government promises.


Except, you know, that's not illegal right now. Last I checked barter is still legal in your country.

Rysto
Posts: 1460
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:07 am UTC

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Rysto » Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:57 pm UTC

The US Dollar's decline in currency markets has nothing to do too much money being printed. If that were the case inflation would be completely out of control in the US, while it clearly isn't. And if you actually understood a thing about economics you'd know this.


Umlaut wrote:So that is why my purchasing power per dollar has decreased at an unpredictable rate. Ok.

The dollar has been way more stable in the last 30 years than the price of gold. Just look at it.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Yakk » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:21 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:Roe v. Wade:
This isn't at all covered in the Constitution. The main debate in abortion is when fucking leads to a human being. Since the Constitution doesn't spell that out, the feds can't make laws about it without some amending.

Gold:
It has some problems, but it is more reliable than the federal reserve, the cornerstone of the current world economy. Right now, if the US is in trouble, everyone is in trouble.


It has huge problems. With the rate the world economy grows, Gold would be a hugely deflationary force on currency. Simply holding onto currency would result in you gaining wealth every year, discouraging you from using the wealth on productive pursuits, shrinking the rate at which the economy grows.

On top of that, it causes massive over-mining of gold fields beyond the actual usefulness of the gold.

On top of that, it causes even more drain on gold allocated to useful things, like connectors and electrical components.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the supreme court has said as much on several occasions. That said, what was done to the natives was atrocious. The colonists and later the US government didn't take the time to learn that they had their own sovereign nation going on, and we all fucked them over. Now, if they had been savages like we thought, I'd have no problem with it (before you freak out about that, learn what a savage actually is).


The Constitution states that Treaties are the supreme law of the land. :)

As the Senate+the President can sign Treaties, they can make up any law they want technically. Currently they don't bother doing this.

Comcast did build its own. You accessing the rest of the internet via their little part of it. If they want to make your access slow, it is their choice. I do object to their denial of bittorrent throttling, as they are misleading consumers, but actually doing it is their own business.


No, Comcast did not build the internet. They built some wires on which part of the internet runs.

If they want to interoperate with the entire internet, they have to follow internet rules. If they want their own playground, they can leave the internet and start their own playground. In fact, as noted, people have done this: SMS network for cell phones is structured much like the internet, except it has rules that are far more biased towards control and less towards freedom of use by the end users.

It looks like there isn't a lot to say about it. Of course, the president still doesn't have the authority to do anything about it, so it is still moot. Even trying to appoint racists as judges, if anyone acts on it, they will be thrown out.


If anyone acts on it and gets caught you mean? I mean, you can impeach judges individually. But that's pretty expensive and awkward.

All those benefits apply equally to rich and poor. It makes it easier for everyone. Does a rich man have 500 times the police watching over him (it's actually more like a quarter as many)? Does he use the roads 500 times as much (that is a lot of fucking driving)? Yes, he's obviously better off, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with taxes.


The rich man has far more police guarding his assets than a poor person. The rich person's time is worth more to the rich person than the poor person's time is worth to themselves: the roads and transportation improvements that save the rich person's time are thus worth more to the rich than the poor.

Social stability makes profits grow fast. The military guards the assets of people in the USA, and the interests of Americans overseas. If someone destroys 1% of the assets of a person worth 100$, the police ignore it. If someone destroys 1% of the assets of a person worth 1 billion dollars, the police don't ignore it.

I'll just restate this one. Why not have people pay for the roads that they use?


1> Friction and Transaction costs. It costs a lot to charge for this.
2> Network values. Being able to go somewhere has a value, even if you don't go there, the boosts the value of the rest of the Network.
3> Budgeting. It is already hard to budget for road building and repair. You just opened up a chaotic can of worms that makes it even harder.
4> Right-of-way. Roads are made cheap in land costs by using eminant domain (sp) powers of the government. This is justified by the road being in the public interest: as such, it should become a public good.
5> Monopoly effects. The monopoly pricing power of a road is different than the marginal cost to build a road. If unregulated, a road monopoly can form that makes road costs higher for consumers of roads than the marginal costs to build road capacity.

Markets are great at solving a certain class of problems. Using markets on all problems is stupid. This is microecon 101.

I never said it was in bad financial shape. It isn't yet. Social security is simply retarded. It doesn't pay off as well as any sort of IRA, so why keep using it? Social security doesn't have any money at all, that isn't how it works. It pays into the general fund and pays out of it. There is now secret stash of social security money somewhere. Of course, in the next ten or twenty years, it will start paying out more than is being paid in.


There is a stash, written in the budgets of the last decades. Almost all money is just numbers written somewhere via accounting. The amount of money that is actual paper is ridiculously small, but that doesn't make the rest of the money "not exist". You do understand the basics of finance?

You all have a pretty seriously flawed world view about this. What actually happened to Bill Clinton? What actually happened to the guys at Enron? One is living in a fucking penthouse in New York after committing perjury. Which one is it?


The US president is immune to prosecution over anything except high crimes and treason, and that prosecution can only occur by the US congress and senate. Enron heads where not the US president.

On top of this, the guilt of the US president was not established: if you read the documents, Bill quite explicitly specified to be told what was meant by "sex" in the questions. And by the definition provided to him by the questioners, the correct answer was "no, I did not". It was a bit farcical, but...

Or did I miss something?

Also, there are very specific circumstances that have to be filled for them to ever be issued.


Currently, the very specific circumstances are "never" -- they have been made illegal under international law, as far as I'm aware. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Melissa63l
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Melissa63l » Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:31 am UTC

Here is the real reason I will be voting for the Ronpaul, as well as campaigning on his behalf at every opportunity:

For the first time in my life, there is a candidate for president that I can admire. Someone trustworthy, who values most of the same things I do. I am, for the first time ever, looking at a politician and feeling *hope*. Until now, every facet of politics, government, and the evening news has bored, depressed, scared, or angered me. My apathy is gone. I *care*. For the first time, I see a possible future that isn't "Buy a boat and hit the road. Don't look back."

By no means do I agree with him on every issue. As an objectivist, I tend to be harder on islamofascism, (and almost as leery of christianity,) and 100% pro-choice. I also tend to favor an open immigration policy, coupled with a total lack of welfare/statist programs. So why am I going to vote for a peace-loving, deeply christian, pro-life, anti-immigration president?

I believe that, while islam is a very real threat to free society (as would christianity be, if its adherents were as zealous,) our "war on terror" is getting us nowhere. Creating more enemies among the people there and nation-building (more like empire-building) while trying to protect religious nut-jobs from each other and themselves wins us nothing. It is bankrupting our country, eroding our civil liberties, and stripping our defenses. It may sound silly, but I would like our government to be more concerned about *American* freedom than Iraqi.

I am also tired of my cousins and classmates being shot and killed by the people they are trying to help. They don't want us there. We don't want to be there. So why are we being sold this unwinnable war? Does this have an orwellian smell to anyone else? I mean, does anyone remember the supposed reason we went to war in the first place? Oh yeah, Osama bin Laden. Caught him yet? Are we even still looking? Or are we too busy "liberating"?

The middle eastern tribes have been squabbling between themselves for thousands of years, using religion as an excuse to hold grudges for generations, treat their populations badly, and kill anyone who doesn't agree. Is it a good situation? No. Would I want to live there? Hell no. But invading merely makes them focus their irrationality on *us* instead of each other. Who are we to meddle in their business? If America is the policeman of the world... this is a domestic dispute. The ugliest, most brutal sort of disturbance, and the most likely to turn ugly for the cop.

Why not just make the US a savehaven for the sane ones who want out? Muslims who have toned down their religion (much like christians) make fine neighbors, classmates, and friends. So long as they are willing to accept the full package of American freedoms (such as the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and not treating their women like second-class citizens) they have just as much right to be here as anyone.

It is a fact, unfortunate or not, (depending on which side you're on,) that the majority of Americans are religious. Specifically? Christian. Is the Ronpaul a christian? Yes. Is he pro-life? Yes. Will he make federal laws against abortion? No. Since procreation is not in the constitution, he will not touch it. He wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, not because he wants to deny abortions or criminalize them, but because the federal government has no right to say anything about it. Yes, he believes that life begins at conception. He correctly points out that, if a drunk driver kills a pregnant mother, he is charged with two murders. If he, as an ob/gyn, does something to harm a fetus, he is legally liable. If an abusive husband beats up his pregnant wife and causes a miscarraige, he can be prosecuted. But doctors can abort a fetus even in the third trimester? The only difference between a murder and an abortion is whether or not the fetus is *wanted*. Even I think there is something wrong with that.

I honestly don't know the answer, but I know darn well that the federal government should have nothing to say on the matter. What is the very worst-case scenario here? Certain states (red states) outlaw abortions, while others (blue states) don't? So you have to travel a bit to have an abortion. I might not like it (and I live in Indiana, so I'd certainly be in the first group of states) but it's hardly the most terrible thing ever. Also, I believe that it is unconscionable to force people (through taxes) who are pro-life to fund (as they see it) the killing of innocent babies. Tax-funded abortions are an injustice to those whose moral convictions label it murder.

(Haha, PS. Those of you who think that the Ronpaul is a racist, a patently ridiculous smear that barely survives mild research, ought to look and see the demographics of abortion. A more suspicious, more cynical mind would start to wonder if pro-choice was just a euphemism for self-inflicted eugenics.)

(It should also be pointed out that, since the majority of congress is democrat, there would be no way for Dr. Paul to push through any sort of radical pro-life agenda... so rest easy, okay?)

This is the crux of the matter, when it comes to libertarians (or those that think like them):

You can do what you want, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

If you think that we should send prophylactics to Africa, you are free to raise funds and organize like-minded people. The government should not use taxpayer money (some of whom are morally opposed to birth-control, remember,) to do so.

If you think we should feed stray dogs, you are free to get people together who want the same thing, and organize together to make it happen. People who don't care about dogs (who are maybe preoccupied with feeding their *children*) should not be forced to fund such efforts.

It is easier than ever, with the growth and popularity of the internet, to find like-minded people and help whomever you wish.

You can *ask* for support, instead of demanding it. You might be surprised how many people are compassionate and would be willing to help. And bypassing government bureaucracy, pork-padding, and inefficiency helps everyone. Again, who did a better job after Katrina hit? The Red Cross, National Guard (locally based and organized), private charities and individuals? Or FEMA? You cannot say, after seeing the heart-warming outpouring of support after 9/11 or Katrina, that people don't care or won't help voluntarily.

And if private charities become stagnant or corrupt, you can start your own, and people can decide freely which to support. Just *try* starting your own government... :)

And if you, as an individual, want to work hard all day, go home and smoke weed, and completely ignore the rest of the world... well... that is your right too.

Libertarianism isn't the opposite of democrat-ism. It is the opposite of *statism*, which both parties seem to be rushing towards.

Melissa
Sometimes it's love, sometimes it's lust... sometimes it's Tuesday.



Aaahhh... a month of Tuesdays.

jwolf
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:51 am UTC
Location: The Old Line State
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby jwolf » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:11 am UTC

Yes, because the rest of the Republican ticket scares me more.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Malice » Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:36 am UTC

Melissa63l wrote:By no means do I agree with him on every issue. As an objectivist, I tend to be harder on islamofascism, (and almost as leery of christianity,) and 100% pro-choice. I also tend to favor an open immigration policy, coupled with a total lack of welfare/statist programs. So why am I going to vote for a peace-loving, deeply christian, pro-life, anti-immigration president?

*snip*

I am also tired of my cousins and classmates being shot and killed by the people they are trying to help. They don't want us there. We don't want to be there. So why are we being sold this unwinnable war? Does this have an orwellian smell to anyone else? I mean, does anyone remember the supposed reason we went to war in the first place? Oh yeah, Osama bin Laden. Caught him yet? Are we even still looking? Or are we too busy "liberating"?


the Ronpaul probably agrees with you: we should get out of Iraq. However, this is a far from unique viewpoint among the current crop of candidates.

The middle eastern tribes have been squabbling between themselves for thousands of years, using religion as an excuse to hold grudges for generations, treat their populations badly, and kill anyone who doesn't agree. Is it a good situation? No. Would I want to live there? Hell no. But invading merely makes them focus their irrationality on *us* instead of each other. Who are we to meddle in their business? If America is the policeman of the world... this is a domestic dispute. The ugliest, most brutal sort of disturbance, and the most likely to turn ugly for the cop.

Why not just make the US a savehaven for the sane ones who want out? Muslims who have toned down their religion (much like christians) make fine neighbors, classmates, and friends. So long as they are willing to accept the full package of American freedoms (such as the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and not treating their women like second-class citizens) they have just as much right to be here as anyone.


On a small scale, are you fine with the cops ignoring a domestic dispute? Will women's shelters be useful at all if a violent husband isn't kept in check by law enforcement?
Who are we to meddle in their business? If "they" are the Middle East, we are the allies of a nation they hate (Israel) and the victims of terrorist attacks engendered by people in the area as a result (whether direct or indirect) of the enmity in the region.
I'm not defending the war on Iraq, but the idea that the US should just leave the Middle East alone is ludicrous. If there's a riot going on down the block, do you close the blinds and turn the TV up or do you call the cops in case looters decide to come burn your house down?

Yes, he believes that life begins at conception. He correctly points out that, if a drunk driver kills a pregnant mother, he is charged with two murders. If he, as an ob/gyn, does something to harm a fetus, he is legally liable. If an abusive husband beats up his pregnant wife and causes a miscarraige, he can be prosecuted. But doctors can abort a fetus even in the third trimester? The only difference between a murder and an abortion is whether or not the fetus is *wanted*. Even I think there is something wrong with that.


You're a reasonable person, so I hope you won't get upset at this analogy:
If my dog is sick, I have the right to take him to a vet and have them put him down. In fact, if my dog is dangerous (infected with rabies, let's say), I and others have the right to kill him so that he doesn't hurt anybody.
If my dog is sick, and some stranger walks by and decides to kick my dog to death, that's a crime.
See the difference between murder and euthanasia?
So a doctor can abort a fetus I created inside myself if I ask him to, but if my abusive husband shoves a coathanger in me and kills it, that's wrong.

We can play the "public perception" game all day--when a fetus dies, do you have a funeral?--but it doesn't show anything but public perception, which, because of both heated sides, is exceedingly muddled. Whether a fetus is a person (capable of being murdered) depends in some cases on what state you're in. The specific laws involved are the result of the individual give and take between pro-lifers and pro-choicers; and if THAT works as an argument, the strongest argument against it is simply Roe v. Wade. Abortion is legal now, QED it's fine, right? No? Then don't try to argue that a fetus is a person just because some laws say so, especially when some laws don't.

Furthermore, history has shown that you can't stop abortions (just like you can't stop drugs, alcohol, or anything else a lot of people want). You can drive them underground by prosecuting doctors (pro-lifers have shown themselves to be disinclined to prosecute the women involved), with the result that women will get abortions which will be more expensive and more dangerous (you'll especially get women trying to give themselves abortions and dying because of it).
Not to mention that this will discriminate against the poor, because the rich can afford safe abortions whether they're legal or not.

Whether or not you think it is wrong, the results of outlawing it are all negative, so why do it?

Also, I believe that it is unconscionable to force people (through taxes) who are pro-life to fund (as they see it) the killing of innocent babies. Tax-funded abortions are an injustice to those whose moral convictions label it murder.


Unfortunately, there's no way to run a government with specific taxes. You think unpopular but necessary stuff is underfunded now, try it with people directly telling the government what to do with their money.

The situation in which I send in my taxes along with a note saying, "Please spend this on art, not war or abortion," is ludicrous. This is a representative democracy, and in fact part of the "democracy" part is that the majority of people get to tell the minority of people what to do. It's a wholesale contract, and you're not allowed to opt in or out in certain places. As you mentioned up above, an immigrant from the Middle East has to accept freedom of speech, women's rights, and separation of church and state. He doesn't get to decide to ignore one of those and accept the others. Neither do you. His and your input into the process is the vote, and that's it.

(Haha, PS. Those of you who think that the Ronpaul is a racist, a patently ridiculous smear that barely survives mild research, ought to look and see the demographics of abortion. A more suspicious, more cynical mind would start to wonder if pro-choice was just a euphemism for self-inflicted eugenics.)


"Eugenics" is a dirty word, yes, but what's wrong with it if it is self-inflicted? I thought libertarians believed you had the right to do whatever you want.

Do you really, honestly believe that the side in the abortion debate defining itself by the idea that "A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body" spends their time sitting around, drinking port, and cackling over the thought of all the dead minority babies?
That's at least as hypocritical as the pro-lifers who feel fine going to war, or, for that matter, firebombing clinics.

(It should also be pointed out that, since the majority of congress is democrat, there would be no way for Dr. Paul to push through any sort of radical pro-life agenda... so rest easy, okay?)


Again, why do you want to elect him IF HE IS POWERLESS?
I don't understand why this justification keeps coming up in pro-Paul arguments. You can't have it both ways. Either his radical new ideas will be great for our country, or we shouldn't worry because his radical new ideas won't go anywhere or change anything.

This is the crux of the matter, when it comes to libertarians (or those that think like them):

You can do what you want, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

If you think that we should send prophylactics to Africa, you are free to raise funds and organize like-minded people. The government should not use taxpayer money (some of whom are morally opposed to birth-control, remember,) to do so.


Everybody is morally opposed to something. Everything is immoral in somebody's opinion. What's absolutely necessary for our government to do with its taxes? National security. Pacifists find that immoral. Should we not use taxpayer money for that?
Mandating prayer in schools? I find that immoral.
Outlawing prayer in schools? A lot of Christians find that immoral.
You can't win like that. The way we resolve these conflicts is through democracy, not through gutting the government whenever somebody objects. Even a government which does nothing but protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, somebody's going to object to something.

The best way to deal with the "Oh no, my tax money is funding something I hate!" is to say, "Wait a second. My tax money is funding the government. The government takes all the tax money and funds something I hate as well as something I like. It's impossible to determine what my physical money paid for and it probably wasn't much. I'll just pretend all my money went to the kitten-petting fund and not the baby-killing fund, because who knows? Maybe it did."

You can *ask* for support, instead of demanding it. You might be surprised how many people are compassionate and would be willing to help. And bypassing government bureaucracy, pork-padding, and inefficiency helps everyone. Again, who did a better job after Katrina hit? The Red Cross, National Guard (locally based and organized), private charities and individuals? Or FEMA? You cannot say, after seeing the heart-warming outpouring of support after 9/11 or Katrina, that people don't care or won't help voluntarily.


I've heard this argument before, and it's bullshit.
Thought experiment time!
the Ronpaul is elected and decides that this is quite true. He determines how much tax money is spent on charitable things per person and mails everybody a check back.
If you're correct, and people are equally supportive, then they will spend their money on the same exact charitable causes, and nothing will have changed. So why bother? (This holds true for people who are more supportive--people who already spend more than they pay in taxes--as well.)
However, if you're wrong, and people are less supportive than the government mandates, and just one person spends half of their tax rebate on booze or something, the world is worse off.
There are, therefore, only two outcomes in practical reality: the amount of charitable aid stays the same, or the amount of charitable aid goes down.
Therefore, it's irrelevant if people pay for charity through taxes or through their own pocket, if you're correct, so why change? If you're wrong, it's important that people pay for charity through taxes. Better to err on the safe side, don't you think?

Just *try* starting your own government... :)


Just try changing your government, perhaps.

And if you, as an individual, want to work hard all day, go home and smoke weed, and completely ignore the rest of the world... well... that is your right too.


No, it isn't, unless the rest of the world ignores you. You drive to work on roads. If your house is on fire, somebody will come and put it out for you. If you're beat up, the cops will help you. Directly and indirectly, unless you literally put yourself in a box and never come out, the outside world sustains you in a million different ways, from helping you to helping the people around you to protecting your freedoms. You cannot stop being a beneficiary of the system without physically leaving the system (and, newsflash, there are systems everywhere--no nation is without government), so we can't let you stop doing your part for the system, either.

Libertarianism isn't the opposite of democrat-ism. It is the opposite of *statism*, which both parties seem to be rushing towards.


And like all opposites, it takes things to an unhealthy extreme.
Image

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Umlaut » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:19 am UTC

With a dog vs. with a fetus, one is actually classified as murder. Isn't that a bit of a legal double standard? The thing is, even if abortion laws are utterly unenforceable, let it be unenforceable at a state level, where it belongs.

There is very much a form of ideal government where people get to decide how to spend their money as much as possible. That government is the one envisioned by the framers, and it has been mangled by slowly taking the choices away from the citizens of this country and convincing them that it's the only way and that it is the best way.

I do think that allowing people as much freedom as possible is absolutely the best thing to do from a pragmatic standpoint. People will help each other, and they will do it in a far more effective manner than the government ever has. I'd like to see some examples of how government programs have served the public better than any private entity could or did. In addition to this, I believe that a government that limits the natural rights of individuals (and no, the government didn't create rights) is not a good government.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Malice » Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:43 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:With a dog vs. with a fetus, one is actually classified as murder. Isn't that a bit of a legal double standard? The thing is, even if abortion laws are utterly unenforceable, let it be unenforceable at a state level, where it belongs.


The practical result of this policy is that a superminority (is that a word? it should be) of states will outlaw abortion, leading to all the negative consequences I detailed, in addition to the massive waste of state resources that would be better spent fighting problems that can actually be fixed.
(Question: if some states have abortion and some don't, and I travel from one which doesn't to one which does to get/give one, does that make it an interstate crime? Wouldn't that force the federal government's hand?)

On the other hand, a majority of the population like Roe v. Wade, so there is less danger of this happening on a federal level.

So even if the issue belongs to the state governments in principle, there's no reason to let them have it since it'll do nothing but harm. Why go through all that?

(And I still hold that it's stupid to prefer state governments over a federal government in principle, since neither is likely to be especially "good". But we've hashed that out before.)

There is very much a form of ideal government where people get to decide how to spend their money as much as possible. That government is the one envisioned by the framers, and it has been mangled by slowly taking the choices away from the citizens of this country and convincing them that it's the only way and that it is the best way.


Really? As I read it, the Constitution provides for a Congress, elected by the people, which is in control of the budget and has the ability to levy taxes. That's the same situation we have today, isn't it? Congress is, has been, and was always intended to be constrained monetarily by the people in one way only--the vote. The framers gave us a representative democracy for a reason--they didn't believe the common man capable of making the right decisions, and that's including on what to spend his taxes.

I do think that allowing people as much freedom as possible is absolutely the best thing to do from a pragmatic standpoint. People will help each other, and they will do it in a far more effective manner than the government ever has. I'd like to see some examples of how government programs have served the public better than any private entity could or did. In addition to this, I believe that a government that limits the natural rights of individuals (and no, the government didn't create rights) is not a good government.


Roads are an excellent example of what I'm talking about.
Government programs serve the public by creating and maintaining roads.
This didn't have to be; it could have been that the fledging automobile companies would have had to make their own roads, the way the railroad and trolly industry did.
Imagine what our roads would be like if General Motors were responsible for the upkeep. No doubt they'd arrange to place the most/best roads (and maintain them better) in places where people bought more of their cars. That's certainly no good.
On the other hand, if roads relied on public charity--that is, neighbors banding together to build roads--it would be pretty impossible, given the cost of road construction, and even then the poorest areas would have the worst roads, which would make necessary economic travel (Farmer John to the market, let's say) more difficult, keeping that area in an economic slump. That's no good, either.
It's not sexy or popular, and if I got the chance to tell the government how to spend my money, I doubt I'd give them any for roads. But it's infrastructure vital to the economic and social health of the nation, and it's a damn good it was taken care of by a government which has the money to do it right and the responsibility to do it fairly, instead of a private entity.

Personally, I feel the government has the right to restrict personal freedom in order to better society--to a point. Probably you agree with me, and we simply disagree on what that point is. However, recognize that it's an arbitrary distinction. How much power should the police have? Is a draft ever acceptable? How much money should the fire department get? Is the government responsible for the health or wealth of its citizens? There are no simple answers to these questions, no irreducible level of government beyond which are powers wasteful and unnecessary.

And I believe that most people (or all people most of the time, which comes to the same thing) are inherently selfish and, at the same time, in need of a leg up now and then. Since, in general, we won't help each other out, it behooves us to extend our altruistic moments into laws forcing us to keep it up the rest of the time--rather like a smoker trying to quit who throws his lighter away, even though he'll regret it later. It's for the best.
After all, the government is just people. Normal citizens told to do by everyone else. It's not some horrific monolith, a windmill at which to be tilted; it's the collective force of our better selves trying to keep our worse selves from ripping each other apart. And government in general is a damn sight better than the alternative--anarchy--which seems to be what the libertarians want.
Image

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby zenten » Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:26 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:With a dog vs. with a fetus, one is actually classified as murder. Isn't that a bit of a legal double standard?


No, I'm pretty sure in the US neither are classified as murder. If you are trying to pass prolife legislation, you are trying to get the second to be declared murder. To have either be declared murder, the definition of "person" would have to change.

Now, who should decide what a person is, the Federal government, or the State?

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Yakk » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:00 pm UTC

The rights as enumerated in the constitution are not a complete enumeration.

Just because the constitution does not say the government cannot do something, doesn't mean the government can do it. The constitution explicitly states that individuals have rights that are not enumerated in the constitution, and does not state that these rights are any weaker than the rights enumerated. It just chose a set of rights and listed them to make it clear that those are rights that the government cannot infringe, it did not say "any anything else is fair game".
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby zenten » Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:26 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:The rights as enumerated in the constitution are not a complete enumeration.

Just because the constitution does not say the government cannot do something, doesn't mean the government can do it. The constitution explicitly states that individuals have rights that are not enumerated in the constitution, and does not state that these rights are any weaker than the rights enumerated. It just chose a set of rights and listed them to make it clear that those are rights that the government cannot infringe, it did not say "any anything else is fair game".


Does it state who gets to decide what those other right are?

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Umlaut » Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:48 pm UTC

It can't be a federal crime unless it is a federal law against it. Basically, this isn't a problem of which is better right now anyways. The issue isn't enumerated in the constitution, so it is either the right of the states to regulate or the right of the people.

The government spelled out by the framers did call for a congress and taxes, but they had restrictions on how they could be spent (fighting pirates is one). Congress has very specific enumerated powers. These have changed in interpretation significantly over the years from what they were originally meant to be. The most obvious one is the interstate commerce clause: "The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Now, when the congress uses this as their justification for something like the Gun Free School Act of 1995, that's pretty ridiculous. These were also the justification for much of the New Deal legislation, and the same supreme court rule both ways on it.

There are two other clauses that are used for pretty much all the high-profile stuff: the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. These call for the congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare and to make laws which are necessary and proper to execute all of it's other powers. These two clauses justify medicare, social security, and all of those kinds of things. The interpretation of the former has changed frequently over the years. The framers didn't even agree on what it meant, so it's pretty hard to say how it should be interpreted. I am a proponent of the most narrow interpretation of federal powers. I believe that the "general" part implies that it is only things that cannot be provided individually and/or better by private entities and exist on a federal level (roads are a good example here).

Roads are a good example of something that exists as a natural monopoly. It's just not possible to have multiple sets of private roads running everywhere. This is very much different from social security, which is served much better by private investments. The same is true of charity. The fact that altruistic legislation passes indicates that a majority finds these things worth it. Saying that selfishness is the problem is a complete contradiction, as these systems were put into place in the first place and not wasn't against a kicking and screaming population. Why not let the people who value altruism give their money instead to charitable organizations? The reason not to is because you want to force other people to subsidize your charitable habit, and that is far from ok in my book.

I think altruism is as much a part of human nature as selfishness. People have a natural reaction to suffering, and forcing them to help is neither necessary nor is it just. Democracy is a form of government that is great for making decisions that must affect everyone (the military, police, etc.), but problems that can be solved by individuals are best left to them. If some group of people supports these policies, why not let them pay? If I like the way they're doing it, I'll throw some money in there too. It not only allows actual competition (thus providing better service), but also isn't horribly wrong.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

User avatar
Umlaut
Everybody's a diacritic
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Longmont, CO
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Umlaut » Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:50 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Does it state who gets to decide what those other right are?

The states do. If it isn't listed in the constitution, it is left entirely to the states or the people.
You will be baked and then there will be cake.

User avatar
Melissa63l
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Melissa63l » Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:39 am UTC

How can I vote for him for change, but also say that he can't do much?

The one thing he *can* do, immediately upon taking office, is recall our troops and end the war. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, he will be able to take that particular unilateral action. I have heard him speak of a timetable in terms of weeks, not months, years, or decades.

After that, his powers are limited, especially since (unlike some presidents I could name... *cough*bush*cough*) he will follow the constitution and not grab extra powers out of his ass.

People like myself, who agree with most or all of his plans, are going to have to elect liberty-minded congressmen and local government before anything substantial can be done. Electing the Ronpaul is not the end of the battle for freedom, it is the beginning.

People who disagree with absolutely everything else he stands for, besides bringing our troops home, can breathe easy for two years, then simply elect more democrats! Or even elect more republicans, so long as they are of the welfare/warfare statist neo-con variety.

Both sides (as in, pro-RP and anti-RP) should remember that a president only has so much power. Those of us who want what he's selling are going to have to continue to be involved in politics, get off our collective asses and work for change. Unless that happens, unless a large ideological revolution happens here in the US, all he can do is stop the war.

I will vote for him as a first step to working towards the America I want. Others will vote to end the war, and then fight everything else he wants to do. Others will vote for him as a way to say "F*** You" to both wings of the current political system. Some will admire his integrity and honesty, his consistancy and unwillingness to bend to lobbies or special interests. Others will realize that *both* sides of this election (Reps and Dems) have been bought by corporate interests, and nobody but the Ronpaul seems to care about what is best for our country. Still more will vote for him to combat the fascist national ID cards, and the "Patriot" act.

Yes, some people will vote for him so that they can continue their first amendment rights to hate speech and bigotry. Do we have to like what they say? No. Do they have the right to say it? Absolutely. Words should be fought with words, not laws or guns. Others will vote for him because they are confusing "No federal foreign aid to anyone" as being anti-israel in particular. (The fact that we fund the enemies of Israel just as much seems to escape their tiny little minds.) Others because little green men or the voices in their head tell them to. It's hardly fair to judge the Ronpaul by the select wack-jobs that support him, nor is it fair to charactarize all of his support as crazy.

There are a million reasons (good or bad, admittedly) to vote for him, and as he says, freedom unites people. Will he win? I hope so. Will he win and then immediately dismantle the federal government, without any allies in congress? Hardly. He is not some messiah, here to save us, or the devil, here to single-handedly destroy the welfare/warfare state that so many hold so dear. A the Ronpaul presidency would be a step in the right direction, but merely one step.

The bottom line is, if you want our troops brought home, if you want our war on terror to be over, you should vote for the Ronpaul. Whether you cast that vote, and immediately begin working against *everything else* he stands for is up to you.
Sometimes it's love, sometimes it's lust... sometimes it's Tuesday.



Aaahhh... a month of Tuesdays.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Malice » Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:47 am UTC

Melissa63l wrote:How can I vote for him for change, but also say that he can't do much?

The one thing he *can* do, immediately upon taking office, is recall our troops and end the war.


The following is an alphabetical list of presidential candidates who have shown their desire to do exactly that (some by explicit statement, others by voting for measures to redeploy the troops home):

Biden, Joe (D)
Clinton, Hillary (D)
Cox, John (R) (believes Iraq is a disaster, wants to redeploy troops home as they are replaced with Iraqis)
Dodd, Chris (D)
Edwards, John (D)
Gravel, Mike (D)
Kucinich, Dennis (D)
Obama, Barack (D)
Paul, Ron (R)
Richardson, Bill (D)

These are just the front-runners. It should be clear that there's a lot of people to choose if you want to get out of Iraq, most of them Democrats.

Now, if what you meant was, "Vote for the Ronpaul to be the Republican candidate just in case the Republicans win," fine, cool.

If you meant, "This is why the Ronpaul should be President," you are uninformed. I would advise you or anyone else with whom this is an important issue to look at those other candidates. I believe most of them are less batshit insane than the Ronpaul, and will still get us out of Iraq.
Image

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby zenten » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:36 pm UTC

Umlaut wrote:
zenten wrote:Does it state who gets to decide what those other right are?

The states do. If it isn't listed in the constitution, it is left entirely to the states or the people.


Can you tell me what line of the constitution says that? I want to look it up.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: So who's voting for the Ronpaul in the primaries?

Postby Malice » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:43 pm UTC

Off the top of my head, Zenten, it's the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Ninth Amendment wrote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The Tenth Amendment wrote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Okay, so it's the 10th. But the 9th is probably relevant.

In either case, the 10th Amendment certainly doesn't state how to divide between the rights/powers of states and the rights/powers of the people.
Image


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests