Thread: Ron Paul 2012

Originally Posted by Xei

Firstly, many libertarians are indeed chiefly concerned with personal liberty and it has nothing to do with greed. They want people to give to charitable causes like education of their own volition, rather than being threatened with incarceration. Who's the humanist; the person who believes society is capable of kindness, or the person who believes you have to threaten people to be kind?

Interesting. Before now, I never made the connection between my view that religion (mostly) undermines humanity by threatening people with hell, and the government threatening people to be charitable. They're technically the same I suppose.

Originally Posted by Xei

They want people to give to charitable causes like education of their own volition, rather than being threatened with incarceration.

What do you mean by this? Are you just talking about taxes?

That was certainly what I had in mind.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

What do you mean by this? Are you just talking about taxes?

Oh, so you're one of those people that thinks taxes are "voluntary". And I suppose the people they throw in cages for not paying them are "voluntarily" imprisoned.

Originally Posted by Xei

That was certainly what I had in mind.

Are you against taxes all together then? If not, why should we not spend them as humanist as possible? Participants in a society are taxed for the general functionality of the society: building and maintaining roads, bridges, ect. I see the education of all children simply as another general functionality of providing academically trained services of quality for everyone in the country, as well as making the country a generally better intellectual environment with countless beneficial consequences for all.

I don't think society really works that way. Wealthy people do not typically help anyone, they use their wealth as leverage to protect themselves and their legacy. Back in Ancient Greece, the aristocrats owned everything and the farmers had nothing but the farmers got sick of it and started killing the aristocrats. Democracy was born, but with it came the rule of the mob. Aristotle's solution to rulership of the mob was to limit inequality, but James Madison's solution was to limit democracy.

Since the Greek Revolts, it seems the battle has been between the elite trying to protect themselves from the mob and the mob working toward their own interests. Things like Social Security and Public Education did not emerge because of some entitlement class trying to force every person to be good in spite of their own disposition, they emerged because the elite refused to acknowledge the debt they owed to the workers that elevated them to begin with.

I understand that point from an Indian standpoint, looking at Karma. When the elites would walk over starving bodies in Calcutta, they assumed the starving people karmically deserved it. Gandhi's rebuttal was that it was their karmic obligation to help them. The point I am making is the entire caste system is like a way of forcing people to behave based upon their karmic obligations rather than their own volition and the karmic good achieved from service can only be achieved were one acting of their own volition, being forced would amount to no karmic reprisal.

I find democracy and social spending to be a separate issue, however. For it was based upon the blood, toil, tears and sweat of the common man demanding compensation from the parasitic elite that these social programs were put in place to begin with. Our ancestors fought for them, not so they could be entitled but so the entitled would pay the people the debt that is owed to them.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Are you against taxes all together then? If not, why should we not spend them as humanist as possible? Participants in a society are taxed for the general functionality of the society: building and maintaining roads, bridges, ect. I see the education of all children simply as another general functionality of providing academically trained services of quality for everyone in the country, as well as making the country a generally better intellectual environment with countless beneficial consequences for all.

I was simply portraying the libertarian position to you.

People freely vote to force themselves to donate to education. Why not simply let people donate to education?

If you believe it to be beneficial, give lots of money to it, and try to convince others to do the same.

I would just be ashamed to live in a country where at the very least a high quality high school education wasn't an inherent right as a human. That requires a reliable source of money, not just donations, and I don't see anything wrong with making it a tax requirement for living in the society. This is based on my own moral values though, so if they really don't see/care about the benefits for the whole society, they have every right to vote against it, but if they loose, that's democracy, and in my opinion, morally right. I have no guilt watching people who don't want to see their tax dollars go to an inherent right of education in their own society pay.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

but if they loose, that's democracy, and in my opinion, morally right.

Democracy: Working for you (as long as you are in the majority!) Ignore 49% of the population? HELL yes!

Hm.

lmao, what dumbass made that picture?

That's not even remotely accurate.

He is against the EPA and federal spending on education, this I will grant you.

All other issues on there, I either agree with (such as eliminating gun control laws and protecting the privacy of sex offenders) or they're completely fucking made up (such as not taxing the top 1%, destroying gay rights and valuing creationism or evolution)

On deregulating the industry, he has said that the industry needs to be regulated to prevent predatory lending. He just thinks the regulation should stop there.

Federal Regulation is usually used as a means to protect the biggest businesses from fair competition.

Live and let live. Ignorance is bliss!

I have no idea who created those facts, but they sound nothing like anything Ron Paul has said, aside from the EPA. (And public schooling would be LOCAL, not "gone." There is so much ignorance in that image ... I ... what is this I don't even.)

EDIT: That is the "Liberal" equivalent to demagoguery... It reminds me of a misguided "Tea Partier" carrying an "Impeach Barack Osama/Hitler." sign.

Yeah who ever made that image makes liberals look bad.

(but the three issues on the left are the issues I consider most important right now)

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Yeah who ever made that image makes liberals look bad.

(but the three issues on the left are the issues I consider most important right now)

I like how it says "He claims to be..." Even though he is one of the ONLY people in Congress to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Hillary Clinton was a supporter of that disastrous Resolution!

Claims to be against the Federal Reserve? He wrote every bill concerning an audit. Same thing with anti-drug war legislation!

Obama got elected for being antiwar and anti drugwar, then he broke his promise. Other than the parasitic economic system, I don't really know what's more important right now than ending the war on drugs and changing our foreign policy.

What more do you need than the situation in Iran to know Ron Paul is the only possible candidate? I may not like everything about libertarianism, as I mentioned in this thread already, social programs are not forced charity, they are the compensation our ancestors fought for from the parasitic elite.

But right now what matters are the policies that are bankrupting this country and destroying our rights. Ron Paul is the only solution. How can Obama even be an option after he signed away our right to due process?

There are only two sensible options, you can either vote for Ron Paul or charge the white house with pitch forks.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

or charge the white house with pitch forks.

That's probably the best option If Ron paul is the best available (I'd reluctantly probably agree) and he's terrible.

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

I am ashamed to live in a country where at the very least a high quality high school education wasn't an inherent right as a human. That requires a reliable source of money, not just donations, and I don't see anything wrong with making it a tax requirement for living in the society. This is based on my own moral values though, so if they really don't see/care about the benefits for the whole society, they have every right to vote against it, but if they loose, that's democracy, and in my opinion, morally right. I have no guilt watching people who don't want to see their tax dollars go to an inherent right of education in their own society pay.

Fixed that fer ya. Low quality education for all!!!!! Cause that's about all you can get from the government we have.

Why is it an inherent right? Doesn't this "inherent right" violate property rights(which actually are an inherent right, at least in my opinion).

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

He is against the EPA and federal spending on education, this I will grant you.

This is one of the most common strawmans against RP. People say he hates the environment be what he actually is advocating is that states take care of this issue since he believes they will do a better job(and it's not in the constitution). I'm not so sure, I think we just need stronger courts. All these oil companies doing fracking should be bankrupt already. That and people being more concerned about what goes into the making of their stuff.

I'm pretty sure he's the same way on education, it's not in the constitution so it's up to the states.

When you think about it, it makes a lot more sense for environmental issues to be done by states. If someone is polluting or damaging a local area, people in that area are the ones who really care. People thousands of miles away don't care. Which is why federal government ends up just a huge bureaucracy that does stuff more for lobbying money than to help the environment.

That is also true for most things. If you collect taxes at the state level, keep the money in the state and spend it there, it is going to be a lot more efficiently spent. Taxing people and sending the money to federal government, then having them sending back what they think your state needs, just causes waste. Even more than the waste, since the people spending the money are very far removed from the people paying, it leads to corruption. If a state senator from New York and Florida is doing something that harms businesses in California, the people in California have not real recourse. They never elected the people and have no say.

As for the drug war, not only is a huge waste of money, it ruins people lives. The US has the most people in prison in the entire world. Our government arrests and jails more people than they do in places like Russia and China. Half of those people in jail are there for nonviolent crimes. We also created the drug cartels and the gangs that actually do harm people, by making it so profitable to sell drugs. People are dying, people are being locked away forever, people lives are being ruined and none of it has to happen, all because of the drug war.

Then you get into the actual wars where reports are millions of people have died. How heartless do you need to be that you do not care about a million people wiped off the face of the earth?

Not only is Ron Paul the only person running who seems educated in the problems we are facing today, he is the only one of them who shows any empathy for other human beings.

Originally Posted by Alric

When you think about it, it makes a lot more sense for environmental issues to be done by states. If someone is polluting or damaging a local area, people in that area are the ones who really care. People thousands of miles away don't care. Which is why federal government ends up just a huge bureaucracy that does stuff more for lobbying money than to help the environment.

Not true for the atmosphere though.

I didn't read the whole thread (I'm so sorry...)

Anyway, I think Ron Paul is the only logical republican candidate. I don't agree with everything he stands for such as his stance on education, but I feel like if we went with someone else then we just won't get out of any wars. It's killing too many people and costs a shit ton of money, but the other candidates seem to be ok with it. Rick Perry himself even said he would send the troops back to Iraq (I think it was a desperate attempt to show his audience how much he disagrees with the current liberal administration). Way to take 500 billion steps back. I'm also not ok with putting American troops in places they don't need to be at all such as Germany, Australia, Japan, etc etc etc.

Apparently he is a creationist despite being a physician, but he won't let his beliefs influence his decisions. For example, even though he is against abortion, he believes the states are responsible for making those decisions. He also won't ban educating evolution in schools. Whoever made that picture above is an idiot, obviously.

Originally Posted by louie54

I didn't read the whole thread (I'm so sorry...)

Anyway, I think Ron Paul is the only logical republican candidate. I don't agree with everything he stands for such as his stance on education, but I feel like if we went with someone else then we just won't get out of any wars. It's killing too many people and costs a shit ton of money, but the other candidates seem to be ok with it. Rick Perry himself even said he would send the troops back to Iraq (I think it was a desperate attempt to show his audience how much he disagrees with the current liberal administration). Way to take 500 billion steps back. I'm also not ok with putting American troops in places they don't need to be at all such as Germany, Australia, Japan, etc etc etc.

But if we take troops out of Germany how will we stop them from building a time machine and traveling back to 1944, and bringing back Hitler to achieve world domination???? Vote Vermin Supreme, the only candidate who will fully fund time travel research so we can get back their first!!!!!

Originally Posted by StonedApe

But if we take troops out of Germany how will we stop them from building a time machine and traveling back to 1944, and bringing back Hitler to achieve world domination???? Vote Vermin Supreme, the only candidate who will fully fund time travel research so we can get back their first!!!!!

Next best alternative to Ron Paul.