I love how he thinks that all laws come from some abstract evil power not to reflect changing social values. The same power that draws people to him is the same power that drew people to the civil rights act and the Jim Crow laws ... appeasing the vocal masses(not always the majority) to create stability.

>> ^Kofi:

I love how he thinks that all laws come from some abstract evil power not to reflect changing social values. The same power that draws people to him is the same power that drew people to the civil rights act and the Jim Crow laws ... appeasing the vocal masses(not always the majority) to create stability.


This is the problem I have with Paul. If one person is wronged by a law but it helps thousands he will scrap it. It's just illogical, like driving without a seatbelt.

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!

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

He wants to be President, and? You imply he is a worse choice than say, the current President (Who has left open a facility to torture, predominately, Muslims,) or the President/s before him (a President who used a degree to fight two wars without batting an eye as to why.) I would hope you can admit he would have been FAR better than Obama or Bush…

So Paul has an issue with property rights and the government telling you what to do? Thoreau also had problems with that line of thought. I think the greater part of their argument, that he fails to articulate, is that---when a government takes power, it always takes more power in time. And when it has the power, it finds a way to abuse it. We see that has happened.

Oh, and I am so glad that the law in 1964 protects minorities... except that the wealthy and white have found 1 million loopholes around it with other laws... Blacks commit a crime? More punishment and jail time than a white. Blacks need a job? No, go away... How about, blacks need welfare? Sure, so long as you don't make anything of yourself. WE STILL HAVE JIM CROW LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY. GET OVER IT. ONLY SOCIETY AT LARGE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM. AND WE WON’T, BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO.

So glad that the useless law does something ineffectively... Oh, and go to certain bars in PA as a black man, and lets see how far the patrons let you go before removing you. Glad that a law will protect your rights as your being stabbed to death--then protects him as the white, racist judge laughs and acquits his friends.

I also think the problem; we don’t ask, what is the principle behind Paul’s actions? Racism? No... Nor greed (The reason pot is illegal, for example.) It is relying on humanity to do the right thing. Unfortunately, as so often the case, Humanity is horrible (See Rome, genocide, and religion)--and we blame Paul for being naive; and he is. But so are we. Instead of holding accountability to the sign holders we laugh at Paul’s ignorance. Instead of blaming the murderer, or rapist, we blame the politicians who have not put laws out there to "protect us.”

Kind of like--"Well, she was wearing slutty clothes so we should blame her for being raped!" I know, I know, that is a far-fetched comparison, but it still fits to some degree. Both people do not deserve to be attacked for their statements (One who was making a statement by dressing physically attractive, and the other one who makes a statement verbally with good intentions.) But, as is the case, people do punish both in society.

I think Paul would be better off being a liar so he could actually get elected--because, though people may do it unintentionally, they elect the bad guy because the good guy always loses. But then, if he did become a winner through deception, he would just be another in a mold of thousands.

The funny part is that in matters such as this, Paul would have no sway in the agenda; he would only have a say in matters of Liberal agendas (Close Gitmo, stop wars, debt, cut down the drug war, end the Patriot Act., etc.) So even if you did elect him, Netrunner, you would get the best of both worlds. No gold standard, but most of your agenda would be fulfilled… Of course, Liberals suck at thinking logically (Even the part of me that is liberal, and there is quite a bit, has this problem.)

Speaking of society, here is my example…
http://videosift.com/video/The-new-Olympic-sport-Cunt-Punching

>> ^Kofi:

I love how he thinks that all laws come from some abstract evil power not to reflect changing social values. The same power that draws people to him is the same power that drew people to the civil rights act and the Jim Crow laws ... appeasing the vocal masses(not always the majority) to create stability.


I would say Paul doesn't view all laws as coming from an abstract evil, but, like Thoreau, Paul thinks that people should have their own laws (norms) to do what is moral. After all, the constitution is law, and he supports that entirely... But, since humanity is a bunch of corrupt SOBs, Paul is being naive. How else can we explain the politicians in office? They are just following the everyday citizen's example...

But, all laws can be evil, just remember that. Slavery was law. Jim Crow laws were laws. War Powers act? The hundreds of laws that degrade and punish minorities even today, they are laws too (See crack punishments versus cocaine.)

>> ^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.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

(Sorry for the length of this response...)

That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

I hate it when colors get in with my whites... stains everything...

Segregation in your basket! No laws promoting mixed washes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0


That was quite the wall of text just for that quip.

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I mentioned that though so it makes your statement kind of insulting.

I think Paul would be better than Bush, but far, far worse than Obama. You want to blame Obama for Gitmo, apparently, but you obviously haven't cared about the topic enough to actually follow the sequence of events. Congress passed a law barring Obama from bringing the detainees onto American soil, and before that New York City opposed bringing KSM to trial there because of security concerns. I think anyone who thinks Ron Paul is somehow going to overcome those obstacles is deluding themselves.

Apparently, you are wrong about my lack of care in this particular topic. Do not generalize. Congress did pass the law, and so? They passed it, if I am correct, in 2009? So he did close it in 2008 when he had a chance? No he did not. And who cares what New York City opposed? Many states opposed blacks being integrated with whites in public schools too—and we know where that went...

I don’t think Paul can overcome the obstacles that Obama has allowed in terms of Gitmo. However, there are ways, one would be leverage. But there are plenty more.

Would the Republican party line up and vote for legislation that would let the detainees come here for Federal trials if Paul tells them to? I doubt it.

Republicans would absolutely not line up behind Ron Paul for this or most other matters. In fact, they would go against nearly every policy he tries because they are corporate hacks and they hate a truly “free” market. Corporations enjoy too many hand outs, too many protections that our government gives them… Just look at how the Republican party speak out Paul...even while pretending to emulate him.

Would Paul make Gitmo his #1 priority? I doubt it.

#1? Maybe not. And? Second or third is fine. However, pointing against your suggestion that he would not give it his best to remove this unconstitutional bullshit, he has been major in his stand on habeas corpus…

Would Paul try to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I bet he wouldn't veto a repeal if Congress passed it...

And? Congress and the House would not have the votes for a repeal, so, like I said, this is a straw-man issue we have…

Would Paul try to repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and health care reform? You betcha! Priority #1, even.

Um, now who doesn’t know what they are talking about? First, Paul stated that he would not, because it was infeasible (Social security and Medicare/Medicaid.) He said he would allow opt outs, and that we would need to fulfill our obligations to those who have already been promised their dues, somehow, to those currently in the program. Just watch the video I posted a link too.

Would Paul get impeached if he tried to rapidly withdraw our troops from everywhere, and then slash the military budget? Almost certainly.

I would be honored to be impeached for doing the right thing. Since when do people only do the right thing when it is easy? That's not the right thing, that convenient. And, actually, the clamor from most republicans citizens (Even those at the VFW I go to) is to cut the military (To a significant degree) because we are in a serious financial crisis. They also, with the actions in Libya and around, wonder if we can sustain our empire. A year ago, you would have been 100% right. We must admit, most Americans want our troops home, even from Iraq and Af-gan.

For the record, I totally agreed with what heropsycho said (the comment you said was 100% right). Paul and libertarians refuse to accept the good things that government regulation has provided us, and dismiss (and decry as EVIL!) the idea that any new good could come from new regulation.

Agreed. Just make sure to note that certain people (Me and others) agree that some regulations need to be a federal issue.

Worse, they want to dismantle all the good, and absolutely forestall any more progress being made in this country on any major issue. Maybe he'd impotently try to deal with the war and associated civil liberties issues, but I doubt he'd even bother when there's still a New Deal to repeal.

He cares about bankruptcy first.

"If we made common sense about this yes I would cut all this militarism and not cut people off from medical care."

I don't see a problem with this. And his view that the dollar will go, some say is doomsday...and so they said that about the levies, and so they said that about 9/11, and so they say it till it happens.

So, we're now equating the conditional support of a poorly written and overreaching law to racism now? Interesting.

Equality is good. Racism is bad. We get it. You can't change the hearts and minds of people through legislation. You can only achieve that through discourse and being persuasive.

@Lawdeedaw, I didn't mean to offend. I just get tired of the accusations that Obama somehow wants Gitmo to stay open, likes it being open, didn't even try to close it, etc. I think on the topic, he's tried, and has pretty much been defeated. I don't think lack of committment was the issue, and I don't think the politics of it would play out differently for Ron Paul. Also, Obama wasn't President in 2008, that was George Bush, who opened it, liked it being open, and argued that the world would end if someone closed it.

Also as sick as I am about bad intentions being ascribed to Obama, I'm just as sick of hearing noble intentions ascribed to Paul.

You know how everybody likes to trot out things Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. said they'd do, but didn't get done? The same would happen with Paul. All the shit he promised to do, or not do, won't happen. He'd abandon some promises, break others, and sometimes just plain fail to deliver. He's a politician, not the second coming.

Also, the office of the President itself doesn't really have much power. Most of your power comes from your political coalitions, and Paul wouldn't have one at all. Even a proven consensus builder like Obama has found that Congressional partisanship trumps everything anymore. Paul, being a crank and a confrontational ideologue would get absolutely nowhere with either party. He's been in Congress for what, 30+ years? What's he ever accomplished? Even his wikipedia page struggles to find any legislative accomplishments.

Oh, and the media shitstorm that engulfs every President would absolutely eat him alive.

But all this is academic because he can't win the Presidency. He won't win the Republican nomination unless he abandons his principles, and if he doesn't win the nomination he won't run as an independent. If he did run as an independent, he'd just split the Republican vote and Obama would win reelection handily.

>> ^blankfist:

So, we're now equating the conditional support of a poorly written and overreaching law to racism now? Interesting.
Equality is good. Racism is bad. We get it. You can't change the hearts and minds of people through legislation. You can only achieve that through discourse and being persuasive.


See? Denial of good done by legislation.

If you really want to wade into this conversation again, why not pick up where we left off last time?

>> ^NetRunner:

See? Denial of good done by legislation.


Hitler built roads.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
See? Denial of good done by legislation.

Hitler built roads.


Indeed. Big ones. Ones the Germans still use, and which became the model for our Interstates.

Are you saying that was...not good?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
See? Denial of good done by legislation.

Hitler built roads.

Indeed. Big ones. Ones the Germans still use, and which became the model for our Interstates.
Are you saying that was...not good?


I'm saying you seem to tout the positive when government breaks a few eggs to make an omelet. Hitler included. Fair assessment?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
See? Denial of good done by legislation.

Hitler built roads.


Now THERE'S an example of a transgression of the letter, but not the spirit, of Godwin's Law.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
See? Denial of good done by legislation.

Hitler built roads.

Indeed. Big ones. Ones the Germans still use, and which became the model for our Interstates.
Are you saying that was...not good?

I'm saying you seem to tout the positive when government breaks a few eggs to make an omelet. Hitler included. Fair assessment?


Lol, no, it's not a fair assessment. You aren't into those.

Hitler isn't infamous because he built the Autobahn. Making an omelet generally doesn't involve crimes against humanity. Nor does building roads.

Nor does telling the police to point their guns at shop owners trying to refuse service to customers for being black, instead of telling them to point them at the black customers who didn't leave when they were told to.

Hitler, however, would fully endorse the view that justice is compatible with denying basic human rights to racial minorities.

If I were you, I'd worry less about me liking the Autobahn, and more about you liking the same conception of justice as Hitler. Fair assessment?

>> ^Payback:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
See? Denial of good done by legislation.

Hitler built roads.

Now THERE'S an example of a transgression of the letter, but not the spirit, of Godwin's Law.


I embrace Godwin's Law. It's somehow accurate.

>> ^NetRunner:

Hitler isn't infamous because he built the Autobahn. Making an omelet generally doesn't involve crimes against humanity. Nor does building roads.

You're wrong. His omelet was the greater good of Germany. He broke a number of eggs that involved crimes against humanity, segregation and imperialism.

He was building the utopian society. Through force and coercion.

That aside, the civil rights act is poorly written and a huge encroachment on our rights. It stands in the way of equality because it tips the playing field unfairly and tries to legislate the hearts and minds of men and women. Terrible central planning morass.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
Hitler isn't infamous because he built the Autobahn. Making an omelet generally doesn't involve crimes against humanity. Nor does building roads.
You're wrong. His omelet was the greater good of Germany. He broke a number of eggs that involved crimes against humanity, segregation and imperialism.
He was building the utopian society. Through force and coercion.
That aside, the civil rights act is poorly written and a huge encroachment on our rights. It stands in the way of equality because it tips the playing field unfairly and tries to legislate the hearts and minds of men and women. Terrible central planning morass.


But here's the thing, you're aiming for a utopian society too, and though you won't admit it, you're proposing to use force and coercion to get there.

The difference is, I care about the actual outcomes for people in our society. For you, the only thing that matters is that force is always used to uphold your vision of morality. Property owners get absolute authority, and people who challenge that authority should get violently coerced to stop. If it turns out that setting things up that way makes life qualitatively worse for wide swaths of people, you say so be it. You have to break a few eggs to make a liberty omelet.

I say that the goal here is to maximize human happiness. If you could convince me that something I believe in (like the Civil Rights Act) has created more suffering than it alleviates, I'd change my mind.

I think you've got a pretty hard case to make on the Civil Rights Act though. You'd literally have a better chance of convincing me that making an omelet is wrong; to make an omelet you have to kill the unborn children of a living creature! By the same token, you've got a pretty easy case when it comes to the things that made people like Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, Pol Pot, etc. infamous.

@direpickle