>> ^aurens:

You envision a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're compelled to do so by the government.
...
One (yours) is a world that places little emphasis on the moral (and social and cultural) development of the individual.

Not at all. I'm asking people to sit down, and decide together to set up some fair and equal structure for identifying and clarifying our responsibilities to one another, and create an incentive structure to help us make sure we are all living up to the commitments morality demands of us.

You (and Paul) want to paint that as something it's not.

>> ^aurens:

Ron Paul envisions a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're driven by their own moral imperative.
..
The other (Ron Paul's) is a world that grants the individual more freedom and, yes, more responsibility.

Right, and if they don't feel like taking responsibility for their fellow citizens, they don't have to. It's your property after all, and you're free to do with it as you wish. People can try to persuade you to voluntarily take on responsibility for others, but if you want to ignore them, we'll make sure your right to ignore that responsibility is defended, with violence if necessary.

I don't really see much promotion of altruism in that.

>> ^aurens:
Before you condemn me for living in a fantasy world, I refer you to my comment above: "The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails."

And my original response to that was: "To me it seems pretty naive to think that world is the world we live in, though. It seems even worse to say that it would be the world we lived in if only we went back to our 19th century economic policies.

I too want a world where government is no longer necessary. I just don't see humanity ever getting to the point where we're all perfect moral creatures. I certainly don't see Paul's insistence that "freedom" means freedom from responsibility for anyone but yourself as being a step towards that goal."

A comment which you dismissed as being a "fallacy" that stems from my "misunderstanding" that Paul's policy prescriptions stem from his naive and unrealistic view of humanity.

Me, I give Paul the benefit of the doubt -- I think he knows that this "everyone will take care of each other" thing is a load of bull, so I don't really factor it into my criticism of him.

It's certainly not aiding his case as far as I'm concerned, and it's definitely no answer to my criticism of his political message.

>> ^aurens:

Somewhat tangentially, have you perchance read anything by Peter Singer, maybe One World or "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"? I find it odd that these sorts of debates center so provincially on the United States without acknowledging the moral responsibility we have for people who are far less fortunate than even the most underprivileged Americans.


I haven't read Singer, but I agree with you that we are almost always provincial in these conversations.

But I sorta feel like solving these sorts of issues at the local level is a prerequisite to solving them on a global level. People who aren't ready to accept responsibility for their neighbors probably aren't ready to even start thinking about taking responsibility for humanity as a whole.

Is Ron Paul a philanthropist who goes around promoting everyone contribute more to charitable causes?

I can't speak for anyone else, but he's certainly convinced me to contribute more to certain charitable causes.


Further, he makes it clear that "freedom" means you should not have to contribute anything to anyone who isn't you if you don't feel like it, even if it means letting someone else die.

You envision a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're compelled to do so by the government. Ron Paul envisions a world in which people take responsibility for their fellow citizens because they're driven by their own moral imperative. One (yours) is a world that places little emphasis on the moral (and social and cultural) development of the individual. The other (Ron Paul's) is a world that grants the individual more freedom and, yes, more responsibility.

Before you condemn me for living in a fantasy world, I refer you to my comment above: "The hard part, though, and one of the biggest hurdles that Ron Paul supporters face, is to determine, honestly, whether or not we've advanced enough as a society to handle the responsibilities that his vision entails."

Somewhat tangentially, have you perchance read anything by Peter Singer, maybe One World or "Famine, Affluence, and Morality"? I find it odd that these sorts of debates center so provincially on the United States without acknowledging the moral responsibility we have for people who are far less fortunate than even the most underprivileged Americans.
>> ^NetRunner:
I'm not talking about what Ron Paul believes or says he's doing, I'm talking about what he's actually out there fighting to make happen ...

>> ^aurens:

"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...


I'm not talking about what Ron Paul believes or says he's doing, I'm talking about what he's actually out there fighting to make happen.

Is Ron Paul a philanthropist who goes around promoting everyone contribute more to charitable causes? No, he's a politician who thinks it's evil and tyrannical to tell people they have to pay taxes to help out other people. Further, he makes it clear that "freedom" means you should not have to contribute anything to anyone who isn't you if you don't feel like it, even if it means letting someone else die.

It's not that I misunderstand Paul's "message," it's that I see through the spin.

@aurens: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/others/RayJan07.html




Your copied original text: Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage).

My paraphrase: "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

The poor: 40% - of the uninsured NEED healthcare, as do the 40% young. That's 80% of the uninsured who cannot afford healtcare and need it. Even if you cut the (free-market) cost an assload, it will still be too expensive for many. Therefore, the federal state that is there to protect their lives should provide the healthcare needed. It is not intellectual dishonesty. Healthcare is a right, at least in every industrialised country except the USA. Just because some guy says it isn't, doesn't make it so.


Can you reallistically tell me how poor people without jobs will be provided with food, healthcare and housing without their government providing if they live in small, poor village in the middle of the USA?

3. My answer is meant to show that your question is laden with faulty assumptions. (Your initial post is a textbook example of begging the question.) But, again, to humor you, I'll address what would happen without farming subsidies in the United States: (a) Americans would eat more healthfully; (b) no, farming would not become unprofitable (except maybe for the huge corporations who wastefully produce the once-subsidized products, namely corn); (c) the average percentage of income spent on food might go up, though it wouldn't necessarily cut "heavily into the income of poorer people."

By the way: farming is profitable for many farmers, and to suggest that it isn't ("would it become profitable again") is misleading.


2. I'll spell it out for you: I choose not to address it. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of labor laws. To suggest that, in their absence, people would be "fired on a whim" is not one of them, and it relegates this conversation to something unworthy of my time.


1. The point of the link was to show, without engaging with your assumption-laden imaginative dystopia, that there are many defensible positions for those who question the wisdom and necessity of antitrust laws.


4. "That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

That's worse than a bad paraphrase; it's intellectual dishonesty. You and I gain nothing from this kind of conversation if we interpret information with that strong a bias. Read it again and see if you can't come up with a more intellectually honest response:


"A common argument advanced in support of greater government intervention in the American healthcare market is that a large and growing fraction of the gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on healthcare, while the results, such as average life expectancy, do not compare favorably to the Western nations that have adopted some form of universal healthcare.

This argument is spurious for two reasons:

A growing fraction of GDP spent on healthcare is not a problem per se. In the early half of the twentieth century, the fraction of GDP spent on healthcare grew significantly as new treatments, medical technology, and drugs became available. Growth in spending of this nature is desirable if it satisfies consumer preferences.

Attributing national-health results to the healthcare system adopted by different countries confuses correlation with causation and ignores the many salient variables that are causal factors affecting aggregate statistics (such as average life expectancy). Factors that are likely to be at least as important as the healthcare system include the dietary and exercise preferences of a population.

Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage). The real problem with the American healthcare system is that prices are continually rising, greatly outpacing the rate of inflation, making healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing fraction of the population—particularly those without insurance.

If prices in the healthcare market were falling, as they are in other markets such as computers and electronics, the large number of uninsured would be of little concern. Treatments, drugs, and medical technology would become more affordable over time, allowing patients to pay directly for them. Identifying the cause of rising healthcare costs should be the first priority for anyone who seeks solutions to America’s broken healthcare system."


Again, the full article: http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Of course the post is highly speculative ...

In your first paragraph you paint the picture of absent federalism or nullification, practically pre-civil war state power restored. If it'd come to that, I think the USA would cease to exist in its current form of 50 states.

2nd paragraph: Aurens hinted at the antitrust laws being too lenient. I agree that money needs to be taken out of the political process, but I don't think dissolving anti-trust instead of fixing and enforcing it is preferable.

third paragraph and following: American Dream and American Exceptionalism and Excellence have turned negative, i agree.

My rant : I think RP'S fight against selfishness is in the wrong direction, but social policies are decried as "Socialism!" too fast, succumbing to scaretactics, which sadly work. Imho, market libertarianism is a political ideology: The solution to everything is "free market!" and "Voluntary everything!"; this sounds nice, but will likely fail, because everything is too complex for a one-phrase-solution. "How will our country prosper? - Communism!"

I (think I) know how it works, I've been ideological myself, it is very nice to think one's movement as better than all other movements, and everyone else is wrong. All solutions of my movement will work, and all imperfections couldn't be helped, they who fell through the cracks did not trust the movement enough.

Isms do not hold the answer,imo, not statism, not liberalism, not communism, not fascism, not liberalism, and not conservativism. Instead of trying to see how an -ism can provide the solution, a politician should just try to find the best solution. Rant end.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...
Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.
And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.
"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.
Off soapbox.

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I noticed that--and thank you. We do disagree about this man except to say he isn't perfect. Which is fine.
As far as "difference of opinion," I would say more or less, "manipulation of opinion." He doesn't flat out lie by a certain number of people's standards, but the neither would half of Fox News videos--which use the same tactics. (The other half, yeah, they flat out lie.)

I think that's a fair assessment. Hell, I straight up agree with you.

I noticed that--and thank you. We do disagree about this man except to say he isn't perfect. Which is fine.

As far as "difference of opinion," I would say more or less, "manipulation of opinion." He doesn't flat out lie by a certain number of people's standards, but the neither would half of Fox News videos--which use the same tactics. (The other half, yeah, they flat out lie.)

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I am not writing this to debate these points so please don't. I respect you the same way. Also, I would like to note when you were disingenuous with no "articulation" when you called my video a near dupe of another. One vid, which you liked, made it seem like Ron Paul was a bastard that wants people to die (Just like this guy.) My video explained his context further and put him in a much better light, which was the opposite of the other video.
I also didn't express my opinion by using the dupeof command, did I?
I think it's legit to want to post the full clip for context (though I posted that myself in the comments of the original). I don't think it changes how it makes Paul look, but that's just my opinion. My only complaint about that video is that it's titled like it's about Rick Perry when it's really a "here's the full statement from Ron Paul" response to another video whose title & commentary you disagree with.
As for the rest of your comment, I'll just say that it sounds to me like a difference of opinion, not lies.

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...

Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.

And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.

"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.

*Off soapbox.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^aurens:
"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:
Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.
So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.
Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.

People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).
Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.
Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).
People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.
The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

>> ^aurens:

"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."
This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...


I think NR gets that, but I can only speak for myself:

Let's say RP gets his ideology through to the presidency and would have 76% of all seats filled with people that share the same ideology, supreme court as well, and ditto for the military (just for completeness). Abolish the national health care system and all other governmental social securities. All regulations and all subsidies get canned, plus: No more wars on foreign soil. Small government.

So let's assume that all people who were laid off in the social sector are immediately hired by the free market companies, all the laid off military personnel from foreign bases find some jobs. Plus: Everyone's net pay comes out as it would be without the taxes.

Let's assume patent laws are still in existence: Drug companies holding a patent can charge whatever price they want, other companies would have to field the costly research themselves to come up with a similar patent. --> costly and ineffective.
If there are no more patents, no company would do research for new patents to stay in business.


People can get fired on a whim without regulations. As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce. Wages will be low, as there will be enough replacement workforce. People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies), expensive public transport (no subsidies, high prices for gas) and their rents (which would most likely also be high, as their landlords need more money).

Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded. The underfunded ones only pay out for immediate threats of life. Only few charities with rich backers have enough income to provide for their employees and selectively only grant moneys as dictated yb their rich backer: Most likely to employees of his firm. What happens to people without jobs? Completely dependant on charity. Around the few charitable organisations, slums are built by the people who rely on the distributed food. Many of these people get hired for the day just for a little money and a bit of food.

Soem are kept by rich people as their personal poor they care for (see India).

People start flocking to the remaining rich states, large areas of middle-America are depopulated, as the aging communities cannot sustain themselves. Farmer is the most popular job again.

The poor revolt, the underfunded police force joins them. Private security of the rich fires into the crowds.
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I am not writing this to debate these points so please don't. I respect you the same way. Also, I would like to note when you were disingenuous with no "articulation" when you called my video a near dupe of another. One vid, which you liked, made it seem like Ron Paul was a bastard that wants people to die (Just like this guy.) My video explained his context further and put him in a much better light, which was the opposite of the other video.

I also didn't express my opinion by using the dupeof command, did I?

I think it's legit to want to post the full clip for context (though I posted that myself in the comments of the original). I don't think it changes how it makes Paul look, but that's just my opinion. My only complaint about that video is that it's titled like it's about Rick Perry when it's really a "here's the full statement from Ron Paul" response to another video whose title & commentary you disagree with.

As for the rest of your comment, I'll just say that it sounds to me like a difference of opinion, not lies.

"He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself."

This is the main fallacy of your post. Ron Paul does believe that we have a responsibility towards others. He doesn't believe, though, that it's the government's role to enforce that responsibility. Until you understand that distinction, you'll continue to misunderstand his message.
>> ^NetRunner:
Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction ...

>> ^aurens:

The problem with tweezing out individual strands of Ron Paul's convictions and considering them out of context, as this fellow did, is that it divorces them from the social and cultural changes that must necessarily accompany them.

Or...it just points out that implementing his policies would lead to a nightmare dystopia, and that he's not really helping push society in a more compassionate, altruistic direction.

>> ^aurens:
It's true (and Ron Paul would concede the point, I think): asking "our neighbors, our friends, our churches" (as he said in the latest debate) to assume responsibility for the health care of individuals without the means to pay for it

That is what I'm for.

It's called national health care. It's a social contract, that specifically lays out everyone's responsibilities and guarantees. To work out the details, we talk to one another, and try to hammer out an agreement that the majority can agree to.

Paul would call me lots of nasty names for wanting to formalize that arrangement into an enforceable contract, though.

He's not really promoting that people need to take more responsibility for others, he's promoting the idea that you shouldn't ever be held responsible for anyone but yourself.

>> ^aurens:
To me, there's nothing more hopeful or more heartening than the world that Ron Paul envisions.

To me it seems pretty naive to think that world is the world we live in, though. It seems even worse to say that it would be the world we lived in if only we went back to our 19th century economic policies.

I too want a world where government is no longer necessary. I just don't see humanity ever getting to the point where we're all perfect moral creatures. I certainly don't see Paul's insistence that "freedom" means freedom from responsibility for anyone but yourself as being a step towards that goal.