"Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law."

Dispute it all you want. That's what her husband says, and she explained she did it because the Bible says wives must be submissive to her husbands. It's right there in the video. Again, spin that all you want. Even if it's a "suggestion", she did it because the husband said to because wives are to do what they're told. You can deflect all you want about why she got her first degree. I never said anything about that. I said she got the post-doctorate degree because her husband told her to, and she believes she's to do as told by her husband because the Bible says so. Period. Done. To argue against this is completely disregarding what she doesn't even deny.

So you don't deny he ever said Palin or Bachmann were dumb because they're women. Dude, that's the freaking definition of sexism!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism

sexism - discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men
discrimination - unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice

Sexism = unfair treatment on the basis of sex, or action based on prejudice from gender

He didn't base one thing on them being women! NOT A SINGLE THING! You can't redefine words to fit your argument! He's slamming them because he thinks they're stupid people, not because all females are stupid.

Was he insensitive? Yes. Rude? Yes. Offensive to some for various reasons? Yes. Sexist? NO! He discriminated based on intelligence or even political philosophies, not on gender.

P.S. It's good to know if I ever invite a black friend over for dinner, I can't serve any of those dishes because that would make me a racist. I'll be sure to let them know that since I'm white, when he's around me, he's never allowed to play rock music, put hockey or golf on TV, ask if I'd like to test drive an SUV, offer me a Heineken, or ask what I don't like about my job. I should be offended if any of those occur.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You lose.
Do you even watch what you post. Bachman said "The Lord put it into my heart to go to law school". Not her husband. When she finished her basic degree the husband said she should get a post-grad degree. He didn't order her, "go get a tax degree". It was more that she - as previously - had options she came up with and he made his suggestion as to what he thought was a good idea. If she'd chosen something else there is nothing in his history that suggests he's have slapped it down. Quite the contrary. He has generaly come off as a guy who supports his wife in her decisions. It wasn't his choice to have her go into politics. That was hers. But he supports it. Oh - what a sexist pig.
Sure, but understand this - he never once implied that Bachmann or Palin are stupid or anything else BECAUSE they are women.
So what? If some jack-hole serves up watermelon & fried chicken to African Americans, he could turn and say that he NEVER IMPLIED that he chose those foods just because they were black. But that doesn't make the choice insensitive, stupid, and racist. Likewise - Maher's crocodile tears about not being a sexist just because he happens to hate conservative women is bunting tossed on a pile of crap.

I'm very confused. Let me get this straight...

You're gonna blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall (a law that REGULATED financial markets) on Barney Frank who voted AGAINST the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which is the legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall?! You do realize you're basically making effectively a socialist argument, right?! You're saying the repeal of Glass-Steagall was intended to help the poor, but it didn't. Glass-Steagall is fundamentally socialist, so you're saying repealing it hurt the economy?!

Other than the fact you got the critical detail of Frank voting against Gramm-Leach-Bliley wrong, I completely agree with you.

In respect that job reports have been disappointing, you didn't address what every objective report about the stimulus bill says it created jobs, and those jobs did go to lower and middle class people. There's a disappointment it didn't do more than it ended up doing, but it DID create/save jobs in the short run, that's undeniable. Extension of unemployment benefits helped the poor and middle class. I could go on and on. You're seriously gonna fight this point?! Ridiculous.

Every company Obama visited and showed as a good example folded, huh? Let's see some proof. I want to see everyone of these companies, and what happened to them. You don't get to throw idiotic statements like this out without proof and expect not get called out on it. You're full of crap on that.

Oh, so if the jobs went to people you blanket don't like, it didn't do any good? LOL! Nevermind they're poor and middle class jobs, those very people you said weren't helped. I don't blame you. Those fat cat teachers and other civil servants, robbing the country blind with their gross underpay and what not! BTW, state employees are not all union members. There are in many states laws against state employees unionizing. Minor detail really...

So you're talking about "real Socialist" countries, not the fake ones I described. Are they more left than us? YES! You then mentioned we've gone "too far to the left" and the pendulum swing of a correction is coming to smite us! Are you suggesting the UK, France, and Britain were smited by the wrath of the free market gods for being too socialist? How have they managed to avoid the smite?!

As to the US education system today. First off, I'm glad you agree with me that universal public education system did coincide with the rise of the US as an economic superpower. You do at least seem to understand attacking that point is pretty pointless. But that also means you lost the argument. We had undeniably the world's best education system during that time, and it was a socialistic program in nature. Do we have the best education system now without question? No. What changed? Not the public mandate. Not the fact it's still mostly gov't operated. That's the same. Therefore, it's undeniable that you can have a top notch gov't run public education system.

Need more proof?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading

What do you notice about the countries with the best education systems? Oh wonder of wonders, virtually all of them have gov't operated public education systems! How do so many evil socialist programs work so well?! Hmmm, maybe it's because sometimes, socialist ideas work the best, and maybe you should open your mind a little, look at specific things, look at data objectively, and apply socialist or capitalist solutions, whichever work the best? I know that's apparently revolutionary for you, but it's called "effective problem solving".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.
Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.
Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...
That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.
Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.
I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.
For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.
Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.
Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.
The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people.

Of course not all of them are corrupt – just most of the ones in political office. However, that is more endemic of being a politician than a leftist as the GOP is corrupt to the core too. I’m sure on some level even the corrupt political leftists believe they ‘care’ and are ‘helping’. But their method of helping is a poison pill destined to kill the supposed beneficiary. For example… Barney Frank thought he was helping the poor by pushing to repeal Glass-Steagall. In Frank’s fuzz-filled brain, he helped the poor get “uffodubble howsing”. But the result of his policies speak for themselves. The poor were NOT ‘helped’, and the nation’s financial stability was ruined by leftist plans for making banks give out loans to people who could not afford them. The left’s method of ‘help’ almost universally manifests in the form of inefficient, expensive, wasteful, freedom-killing big government programs which inevitably crash, burn, and make things worse than any leftist ever DREAMED life was like without their ‘help’.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

That’s why every month the US has “unexpectedly high” unemployment figures. It’s why every job report for the last 3 years has been ‘disappointing’. It’s why every company Obama visited on the stump as a ‘shining example’ for jobs has folded. There are multiple reports that prove Obama’s stimulus money has gone almost entirely to labor unions, or state governments (and thence, THEIR unions) who supported him. In short, like a typical Chicago thug, he used the stimulus as political payola “walkin’ round money”. Jobs for the middle class & poor? Maybe 1 for every million bucks.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false.

I’m talking REAL left government – socialism. History has proven that leftist political philosophy’s ultimate end is wealth concentration at the top of government with the ‘people’ in utter poverty such as Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, et al. What you are talking about are not really socialist governments. They are capitalist with socialist programs IN it (sort of the mirror image of China’s “socialist with capitalist programs”). The US ever since FDR has not been so much a ‘capitalist’ society as much as it is just another European-style capitalist with social program left-leaning government. The New Deal, the Great Society, and so many other leftist programs have routinely and regularly siphoned wealth from the middle class and used it to conduct failed social experiments. For the last 20 years or so, the US has gone further and further left in terms of spending and economic policy.

For example….universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age.

Like all socialist systems, it starts well but ends badly. Remember Orwell's "Animal Farm"? Look at the US education system today and tell me it is “working wonderfully”. It is one of the most expensive in the world, while at the same time one of the least effective. Universal education is great. PUBLIC universal education? Not so much – and mostly BECAUSE it is a ‘socialist’ program. Open up a voucher system and let people choose the school, which will increase competition and lower costs.

Now - I don’t disagree with the underlying premise of your position. A pure capitalist freedom isn’t good either. Freedom is the best choice, tempered with a distant set of standards. I don’t have a problem with government mandating universal education, or even with it establishing some basic, simple standards. However, the pendulum has swung too far in the ‘socialist’ direction, and we are due for a correction. However, the people who benefit from the social system (government & unions) are responding as predicted to pullback, and would rather blow up the system than give up their power and money. Such is the end result of socialism, alas.

The founding fathers had it right. It is best to leave such matters at the state level where the people have more control and there is more accountability. The federal government should serve as ONLY a place where people can go to redress grievances (abuses). Central systems are fine when they are distant, have little power, and serve as little more than a final authority to appeal to, or as a repository of advised (but not REQUIRED) standards. The ‘system’ should be about 5% centralized and 95% local. Right now the US is more like a ‘45% federal, 55% local’ government and it is coming apart at the seams.

*politics *philosophy

@GeeSussFreeK,
What qm does positively identify and is right about is a willingness to involve gov't in society when needed. I don't think it's correct to say if you care about human rights, you're a Progressive. I don't consider Libertarians progressives when speaking of political philosophy. Defined in our political history, the Progressive Movement was about improving society, standing up for the common man more so than protecting Big Business (trust busting, progressive income taxation), eliminating corruption in gov't positions by doing things like hiring and promoting based on meritocracy instead of political loyalty, raising pay and benefits for public employees so they don't have to resort to deriving income from bribery, etc. Yes, there is a Big Brother element to it, as Progressives tend to overstep their bounds to improve society by sometimes eliminating rights. You can clearly draw a straight line from the Progressive Movement to large warning labels on cigarettes, institution of bans on smoking in public places, the War on Drugs, etc.

I don't intend to suggest by any means Progressive thought is the one true political philosophy, and that no bad has come from it. The defining moment in our political history that proves otherwise is Prohibition. But calling it "Communist Lite" and all that with so many good things to come out of it is just nonsense. Ideals of the Progressive Movement are firmly entrenched in both major parties today, although obviously more so in the Democrats, since they're more willing to involve gov't particularly in the economy.

About the FDA, again, not a perfect agency by any stretch of the imagination. But please read some history about what just buying food was like before the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act. Absolutely no doubt we're better off now than we were before them. They can always be improved, but what I notice now a lot is a fundamental questioning of ANY gov't involvement in the economy, with the continued insistence gov't always makes things worse. It doesn't always makes things worse. Sometimes it helps tremendously, sometimes it doesn't help, sometimes it makes things worse. But ideologues who insist gov't intervention is always bad have a very very selective reading of history, or a fundamental ignorance of it.

I think my political position if you've read my other posts can only be described as moderate. I'm not a Democrat, Republican, liberal, or conservative. I will rail however against anyone who says ridiculous things like "Progressivism is Communism Lite", and stuff like that. The reality is fixing gov't and society is very complex, and anyone preaching easy answers like "the free market will always fix it" or "just get gov't to regulate it" every time either are very ignorant, or are pushing a political agenda instead of actually trying to fix the problem. Liberal nor conservative philosophies have a monopoly on good solutions.

>> ^VoodooV:

now you're just avoiding the argument. And as I already stated, the definitions on google simply doesn't match up to your arguments, so I don't know why you're proving my point.
But to answer your new argument: Yes, you can stop paying for those services...
...by leaving the country. Freedom is a bitch. You seem to hate the system so much, but talk is cheap. Fortunately, we have enough people who actually do things about injustices, real or perceived, like Ms. Good and a court system that enables these issues to be argued in order to improve the system
Instead of just waxing political about shit on the Internet.


Sure, whatever. Keep up the good fight, chief.

By the way, let me emphasize the more salient points of the wiki definition above in case you missed it: "From wiki: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals.""

That's fucking statism, dude. Could not be clearer. Moving along.

>> ^VoodooV:

Yes, I do have a problem understanding. Quite simply, your definition of statism doesn't match up with ANY given by a google search suggested by yourself. By your own messed up definition, it doesn't matter what the police does, it's statism regardless, but I don't see you crying statism on the sifts when the police do something arguably good.
The police officer acted inappropriately, the state upheld the liberty of the individual arrested by the inappropriate officer. Case, quite literally, dismissed.
You haven't demonstrated anything other than your irrational hatred of the 'po-po
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^VoodooV:
Ahh...cuz you say so. Got it.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^VoodooV:
it's statism if the courts uphold the cop's position.
Nope. Not true. It's statism regardless. You're just making parameters up.


No, because it's the definition of statism. Feel free to google it yourself. The police are a part of a statist apparatus. Whether or not the state deems its own actions illegal or not has nothing to do with whether or not it's statism or not. It just is statism.
Problem still understanding that?



Not true, masked crusader. I think most of cops are the bee's knees. That means I think they're good, and they do a good job, and they mean well. But when they do bad, or when their policies are bad, or if the laws are bad, etc. etc. etc. I have next to zero recourse, because it's not like I can just stop paying for their service now is it? That's the utter failure of statism, IMHO.

Also this. From wiki: "Statism (or etatism) is a scholarly term in political philosophy either emphasising the role of the state in analysing political change; or, in describing political movements which support the use of the state to achieve goals."

I think Rand Paul's problem, and many other peoples' problem, is that they pick a political philosophy and either take it to extremes or refuse to consider anything else.

I'm a moderate who leans a little toward libertarianism. I think it's important to constantly ask, "Is this something that the government should do?" or "Is this something that is best done by the government?" This is probably seen as "typical behavior" for a libertarian or conservative. The difference is sometimes I think the answer is yes.

Spending 2 billion up front may keep us from having to spend 5 billion on the back end. I don't think Paul is out of line for questioning that statement. I'd want to see the numbers that prove this out if I were on this committee. Where I think he gets ridiculous (as Franken correctly calls him on) is in suggesting that anyone has claimed this will scale perfectly to unlimited heights. He's constructed a strawman claim that spending more money always leads to more savings.

Let's say you have an office and you need to buy pens. You can buy pens for $0.50 a piece or $0.60 a piece, but the 60-cent pens last twice as long. Let's say 5 cases of 50-cent pens will last a year, so 5 cases of 60-cent pens lasts 2 years. You'll obviously see savings in year 2 because you won't have to buy pens at all that year. I don't think I'm saying anything that's not obvious.

But what Paul says essentially is, "Then why not buy 5000 cases of pens?"

If he was asking honestly and out of ignorance, well that would still be somewhat concerning, but it's more irritating to me that he's being snarky about it. There are lots of reasons not to buy 5000 cases of pens. Who knows if the office will even exist in 200 years, let alone still need pens?

So yes, I feel it was entirely appropriate for Franken to call his question absurd. But at the same time, I don't see it as bad that someone (Paul in this case) is getting in there and asking "are we sure this is a good idea?" I just wish he was more rational about it.

The other aggravation this video, and others like it, cause for me is the reaction they get which I might categorize as, "LOL! Libertarians/Conservatives are stupid! Vote Democrat!"

If this is the point you want to make, tell me why I should vote Democrat rather than why I shouldn't vote Republican. Voting for the idiots who will do the least damage is not all that appealing, no matter which party it is.

And I'm no nearer to understanding your point, it seems. Most of us are talking about the specific events in the video, but you seem to be making a sweeping generalization about adherents of certain political philosophies.

I do agree that confronting a cop at a random traffic stop isn't a way to affect societal change. It's also not likely to result in you being let off the hook for whatever thing they stopped you for.

But I don't really think that's something high-level like political ideology, so much as a more fundamental question of emotional self-control, and learning the requisite social skills for dealing with authority figures.

>> ^chilaxe:

When liberals and libertarians makes themselves get tazed, it's because they're trying to resolve whatever complaint they have at the moment instead of after the fact.
If they believe they shouldn't have to comply with lawful orders, or that cops should be nicer, they could deal with it after the fact or before the fact by making legislative efforts, and if the voting population agrees with them, they'll be successful.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, um. Did you just justify the actions of this council?

Nothing so black and white. In terms of passing judgment on the council, I mostly said "I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions."
Do you want to talk with me about political philosophy, or are you just looking to try to level some personal attack at me?
I'm happy to do the former, but I'm bored with the latter.


Don't be such a Kamyar Enshayan!

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, um. Did you just justify the actions of this council?


Nothing so black and white. In terms of passing judgment on the council, I mostly said "I would've liked to have heard what they said in response to these questions."

Do you want to talk with me about political philosophy, or are you just looking to try to level some personal attack at me?

I'm happy to do the former, but I'm bored with the latter.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I am a little confuzled about calling @Skeeve and my conversation both true and a non sequitur. I guess because I am addressing a more theoretical, man kind building question and you a more practical one. Your talking about the more practical, of making things work now, I am talking more about how I want things to work, for always. A the difference between the tangible and the ideal I guess.

It seems you weren't all that confused, that's exactly what I was getting at.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I have been considering the statement "the needs of the many..." for the course of a few weeks now.

...

I find that the statement of "the needs of the many..." very closely relates to the Democratic position.


I think the "the needs of the many..." quote is a pretty crude statement of the type of moral reasoning you find on the left. The more refined version can be found described in John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but if you want a brief synopsis of the philosophy, try this.

I would also say most modern liberals tend more towards a Rawlsian political philosophy.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
When your tribe is 20 people, and the fate of your people all hang in the balance of routine decisions, evolutionary speaking, to survive, it is easier to remove the rational component of this choice. The rational implications of every choice you make determining the fate of your entire race is a burden that doesn't aid in decision making. It is much "better" to program in an emotional response and have that being post-rationalize later, intelligence is actually more of a burden than a tool in this area. This way, we remove the impotence one might face in the light of such a larger than life issue, and set in that mind a continuing sequence of emotional ties to the event through post-rationalizations.

I totally agree. I tend to think of a lot of what humans use rationality for is to rationalize decisions they really made at a gut/emotional level.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think the reason Democracy works so well, given this situation, is it very closely mimics the "rules of the jungle." By that, I mean force. Democracy is an interesting formalization of the rules of the jungle. Instead of the force being a stick or a knife, it is a vote.

This, on the other hand, I think is totally false. Democracy is a tool to try to tie large, diverse groups into a single tribe by getting rid of the "tribal leader makes the decisions for the tribe" aspect of tribal society. The reason we want to do that is that even though we're no longer just a pack of 20 trying to deal with tigers in a jungle, we are still facing all sorts of threats from the outside world (e.g. disease, natural disaster, food scarcity, water scarcity, etc.), as well as threats generated by our inability to cohesively work as a unified tribe (war, pollution, persecution, extreme resource inequality), and that we should all be united in dealing with that common cause.

The "rules of the jungle" is more something you see in markets. The idea in most right-wing philosophy is to keep the idea that tribes should stay entirely hierarchical, and that no tribe should feel fundamentally obligated to any other tribe. Strong tribes should be allowed to amass resources they take from weaker tribes, and weaker tribes get killed off. Theoretically there's some method for preventing these inter-tribe conflicts from being violent, but nobody's worked out a way to do that other than creating a state who will use sticks and knives (and guns and nukes) to make people play by the rules of the market by force.

The evolutionary component of markets is really the key to what its proponents like -- evolution brings us forward progress, after all. The position over here on the left is that morally speaking, evolution is cruel. People like me see the benefits of markets, and the moral downsides, and want to try to find a way to make markets less cruel. People much further to my left are moral absolutists who want them destroyed because they're inhumane.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The course of discovery seems to be without end for man. It seems inevitable, that in time, each human will have access to such a level of technology that any one person could end all life on the planet with little to no effort. Our only current solutions for it are that of liberty, which would only take one crazy person to end it all, or regulations, of which would have to be of the most extreme kind to protect against knowledge that is easy to acquire and use. It seems that the current rules that bind this planet along with mans advancement in technology have set us on a collision course with a cruel destiny. While not a certainty, I do believe it is certain that the tools of Democratic force will not save us from our own self imposed destruction.

I think the way to deal with it is to realize that the choice between "regulations on world-destroying weapons" and "liberty demands that crazy people have the right to own world-destroying weapons" is actually a really, really easy choice, since one of them ends with no one left alive on Earth...

Will "democracy" protect us from being stupid about that choice? No.

But if humanity is ever going to make it through its technological adolescence, we're going to have to set aside these childish notions that "liberty" only exists if you can completely disavow any sense of obligation to the rest of humanity.

We all see things through the deforming prism of our own minds. To some, bullying is the deconstruction of political philosophy. To others it's ball busting. To others it's the use of invective like libertard or statist. To others it's gossip and shit talk. To others it's the casual use of sexist or racist humor.

>> ^heropsycho:

This is where libertarian philosophy just breaks down. And once you prove it doesn't work all the time, then it becomes time to have a rational conversation. I don't mean to single out libertarian philosophy; all political philosophies break down at some point. Pure capitalism does nothing to address corporate corruption or actions which hurt society as a whole. Communism does little to motivate people to work hard and innovate because most people simply are not willing to work hard for society as a whole. Every single one of those philosophies however still have value, and can provide tools and ideas on how to solve society's ills.
My problem with Ron Paul and other libertarians is they refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us even when it's staring them in the face, and there's so very little argument against it, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because if he admits that law was a good idea, it means you can't just follow Libertarian philosophy 100% of the time. Sorry, but the real world is complex and complicated!


You mean, "Ron Paul and some libertarians." I believe in state's power, as libertarians do, but Paul does take it too far... I just think state's should compete with each other and people should decide where they wish to live (And thus support.) You don't like Arizona? Move to Ohio and pay taxes there. That, if you will humor me, kind of Boycott will force Arizona to change. Unfortunately, most people are to dumb, lazy, and unmotivated to know their power...

So, what I am saying--is that you are 100% right. Thank you for this truly articulate response. It was much better than other comments.

This is where libertarian philosophy just breaks down. And once you prove it doesn't work all the time, then it becomes time to have a rational conversation. I don't mean to single out libertarian philosophy; all political philosophies break down at some point. Pure capitalism does nothing to address corporate corruption or actions which hurt society as a whole. Communism does little to motivate people to work hard and innovate because most people simply are not willing to work hard for society as a whole. Every single one of those philosophies however still have value, and can provide tools and ideas on how to solve society's ills.

My problem with Ron Paul and other libertarians is they refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us even when it's staring them in the face, and there's so very little argument against it, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because if he admits that law was a good idea, it means you can't just follow Libertarian philosophy 100% of the time. Sorry, but the real world is complex and complicated!