The problem with many Ron Paul supporters
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:49:36 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The problem with many Ron Paul supporters
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: The problem with many Ron Paul supporters  (Read 4642 times)
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 09, 2009, 09:32:37 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hi Strawman, Meet SPC.

Where did I say such things?
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 09, 2009, 01:29:12 PM »

Some of Paul's supporters can be a bit too radical. But for the most part it has died down since the election. Now we have the radical supporters of Obama.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 09, 2009, 07:08:09 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hi Strawman, Meet SPC.

Where did I say such things?

Well, you say that many Ron Paul supporters support an anti-human ideology. Since many Ron Paul supporters are libertarians, I assumed you were referring to libertarianism, an ideology that supports consistantly respecting life, liberty, and property, as anti-human. Therefore, the implication is that some ideology that doesn't respect life, liberty, or property is humanitarian.

However, if you were referring to some other ideology common among Ron Paul supporters, I apologize.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 09, 2009, 07:12:11 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hi Strawman, Meet SPC.

Where did I say such things?

Well, you say that many Ron Paul supporters support an anti-human ideology. Since many Ron Paul supporters are libertarians, I assumed you were referring to libertarianism, an ideology that supports consistantly respecting life, liberty, and property, as anti-human. Therefore, the implication is that some ideology that doesn't respect life, liberty, or property is humanitarian.

However, if you were referring to some other ideology common among Ron Paul supporters, I apologize.

The idea that libertarianism in any way promotes life, liberty or property is frankly absurd and is why no one takes you (plural) seriously.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2009, 02:23:44 AM »

Be careful, your ignorance is showing.
Logged
Lunar
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,404
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2009, 02:32:01 AM »

The idea that libertarianism in any way promotes life, liberty or property is frankly absurd and is why no one takes you (plural) seriously.

Any serious critique of the libertarian philosophy says that hard-core libertarians take those three nouns TOO seriously to the point that it infringes on those three nouns.

To play the devil's advocate to avoid getting to passionate:

Say, guns, according to some, take away more life/liberty than the liberty they grant.  But to say that it doesn't "promote" it, even in that situation is ridic.

Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2009, 03:24:26 AM »

Yeah, I'm really curious how he came up with that line.  If anything libertarians are TOO into promoting life, liberty and property...to the detriment of everything else.  That's usually how the argument goes against us at least.  This one is weird.  It's like saying"the idea that Catholics in any way promote Jesus, Christianity or loving your neighbor is frankly absurd and is why nobody takes them seriously".

Maybe Verily is confusing libertarians with Socialists again?
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,846
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2009, 11:00:50 AM »

Libertarians have a very funny definition of the "good life" and for that matter have an even funnier defintion of 'freedom' and 'individualism'.

[Placeholder: will post more later]
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2009, 12:16:08 PM »
« Edited: March 10, 2009, 12:21:28 PM by Verily »

Yeah, I'm really curious how he came up with that line.  If anything libertarians are TOO into promoting life, liberty and property...to the detriment of everything else.  That's usually how the argument goes against us at least.  This one is weird.  It's like saying"the idea that Catholics in any way promote Jesus, Christianity or loving your neighbor is frankly absurd and is why nobody takes them seriously".

Maybe Verily is confusing libertarians with Socialists again?

Again? I'm curious about when I've done it before.

In any case, your Catholic analogy is problematic. "Jesus" and "Christianity" are not things which can be promoted in the same sense as "life" or "liberty". A better analogy would to say, "The idea that the Catholics in any way promote love, caring and community is frankly absurd."

That the rhetoric of an ideology uses certain words doesn't say anything about its practical promotion of those ends. Libertarianism claims to promote life, liberty and property, but the reality of its claims reduces the level to which individual humans have rights of life, liberty and property. Similarly, Catholicism might talk about love, caring and community but actually act counter to them. (Note that I'm not trying to make an argument against Catholicism here, just keeping with the metaphor. Take it for granted that Catholicism reduces love, caring and community. Or replace Catholicism with something like Soviet communism, which acted obviously counter to its claim to provide for the welfare of the people.)
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 10, 2009, 12:21:42 PM »

That the rhetoric of an ideology uses certain words doesn't say anything about its practical promotion of those ends. Libertarianism claims to promote life, liberty and property, but the reality of its claims reduces the level to which individual humans have rights of life, liberty and property.
Exlpain how.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 10, 2009, 12:31:23 PM »

That the rhetoric of an ideology uses certain words doesn't say anything about its practical promotion of those ends. Libertarianism claims to promote life, liberty and property, but the reality of its claims reduces the level to which individual humans have rights of life, liberty and property.
Exlpain how.

Among other things, libertarianism (as opposed to simple rightism or social liberalism) wants to completely eliminate all regulation and oversight of, generally speaking, human activities. This maintains a remarkably sunny optimism with regards to the human tendency for abuse of power. Libertarianism offers no protection against abuse by those already in power, nor does it really find such abuse to be a problem. Rather, it argues that the free market and social pressure will wish away faults in human character. This extreme naivete (or, in some cases, such as those who few would benefit in such a system, self-interest) means that certain humans are free to control in a far greater manner than any current person or organization does so the lives of other humans, thus reducing humans' rights to life, liberty and property due to the world of thuggery to which libertarianism inevitably leads.

(Hopefully you will forgive me for the low quality of a hastily written response. I'm also still waiting for an explanation of the last time I confused socialism and libertarianism.)
Logged
Reluctant Republican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,040


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 10, 2009, 03:16:41 PM »

As someone who supported Ron Paul, I have to say I think he was wrong on some things.  For example, maybe returning to the gold standard would not be the best move. I still maintain he would have been a good president though, given he’d have to make concessions to get his program through a largely opposed congress. Perhaps this is an idealistic view of the situation, but he could have a pretty bipartisan presidency, relying largely on Democratic votes to pass some things, such as his withdrawal from Iraq, and negotiating mainly with Republicans when it came to the economic side of his agenda. Realistically though, I think most of his agenda would never see the light of day, and he’d be a largely ineffective president in accomplishing what he set out to do.  But that’s not necessarily a bad thing, if he prevents the agenda he’s opposed to of making any progress either. In some cases that’s more important.

As for his supporters, I’ve met a few kooky ones, and I’ve known more unstable ones online then anywhere else, as is common. But I’ve known some that seemed to really have a good grasp on reality. I like to think I’m pretty stable, though I’ll admit I’m ignorant or naïve on plenty of things.  I’d say that the Ron Paul movement is in part a personality cult though, as others have said. I just can’t get as excited about Gary Johnson or even Mark Sanford as I can about Paul. If he doesn’t run in 2012, and I tend to think he’s leaning against it, though maybe his performance at CPAC changed that, I’ll probably gravitate towards Romney, unless Johnson or Sanford run and actually poll pretty well. But it's a long way out, still.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 10, 2009, 06:16:43 PM »

The idea that libertarianism in any way promotes life, liberty or property is frankly absurd and is why no one takes you (plural) seriously.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Emphasis mine.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 10, 2009, 06:27:47 PM »

The idea that libertarianism in any way promotes life, liberty or property is frankly absurd and is why no one takes you (plural) seriously.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Emphasis mine.

I don't think Verily was arguing against the theoretical defintion of libertarianism, but rather what would happen if libertarianism were ever seriously applied.

Libertarians themselves obviously believe in maximizing individual rights...but in my opinion, fail to realize that not everybody has such noble goals as they do, and that a libertarian society would offer little protection for those that are victims of discrimination, because libertarians would argue that intervening, regardless of what the case is, would be an infringement on rights.

In the economic sense, pure libertarianism can't promote economic liberty in practice because it in no way provides for equal opportunities for all. Sure, in theory, everybody gets exactly what the market allows...but certain things are necessary in order to be competitive in a market economy, such as health and education. Without providing for equal opportunity, people will always be put at an advantage or disadvantage not based on their own merit or intelligence...but soley based on the money they get from family or inherit. Here as well, theory and practice are entirely different matters.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 10, 2009, 06:29:13 PM »

Among other things, libertarianism (as opposed to simple rightism or social liberalism) wants to completely eliminate all regulation and oversight of, generally speaking, human activities.

That is a blatant lie. Libertarians support regulation and oversight of human activities. They just oppose government regulation and oversight of human activities. In a libertarian societies, there would be plenty of private groups who could use voluntary means to regulate and oversee human activities.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, what does that say about those who wish to have most political power in the hands of a central government?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, so please elaborate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, unlike unelected government bureaucrats, the free market has constant oversight exercised upon it, and if the public doesn't like a business' activities, they can "vote" it out of business by not trading with it. Of the hundreds of thousands of federal bureaucrats, Americans only get to vote for 537 of them, and only on a 2-6 year basis. If asked to choose between the "magical" market and the incompetent state, I will go with the former.

 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. Again, you say this and still support centralized government, which "is free to control in a far greater manner the any current person or organization does so the lives of other humans, thus reducing humans' rights to life, liberty, and property due to the world of thuggery to which statism/collectivism/socialism/fascism/centralism/totalitarianism inevitably leads."

If you could care to explain how libertarianism leads to thuggery, that would be appreciated.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 10, 2009, 06:34:58 PM »

As someone who supported Ron Paul, I have to say I think he was wrong on some things.  For example, maybe returning to the gold standard would not be the best move.

Well, ideally private money would be implemented, but I think the current crisis shows why the monetary system needs to be seriously reexamined.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This may be why I am being further convinced that political libertarianism could never work.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that may be because Johnson and Sanford haven't been in the public eye as much or are not as libertarian as Dr. Paul. I wouldn't vote for Romney under most circumstances, though. What about him is there to be proud of as a libertarian?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2009, 06:48:27 PM »
« Edited: March 10, 2009, 06:50:33 PM by Senator SPC »

Libertarians themselves obviously believe in maximizing individual rights...but in my opinion, fail to realize that not everybody has such noble goals as they do, and that a libertarian society would offer little protection for those that are victims of discrimination, because libertarians would argue that intervening, regardless of what the case is, would be an infringement on rights.

You can "intervene" without actively punishing people who discriminate. Someone who discriminates will have to pay for that with fewer customers and thus a lighter paycheck. If they think its worth it, then that's his problem, but any unbiased entrepeneur would see an opportunity for profit and thus wouldn't discriminate.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Under a free market, the natural tendency for services is for the quality to improve as the price drops. Under government monopoly (or do I repeat myself), the natural tendency for services is the opposite. Thus, it seems that the proper solution for health and education (which weren't problems prior to the 1960s and mid-19th century, respectively) would be to open them up to a competitive market, which would be the best way to achieve equal opportunity.


By the way, to avoid getting off-topic, it might be better to redirect this discussion here.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2009, 07:00:19 PM »

Well, unlike unelected government bureaucrats, the free market has constant oversight exercised upon it, and if the public doesn't like a business' activities, they can "vote" it out of business by not trading with it. Of the hundreds of thousands of federal bureaucrats, Americans only get to vote for 537 of them, and only on a 2-6 year basis. If asked to choose between the "magical" market and the incompetent state, I will go with the former.
Yeah because it is very realistic to expect the hordes of poor that would exist in a liberitarian society to stop buying food and other necessities from monopolies. Roll Eyes

If you are wondering why everyone is arguing against you, it is because liberitarianism is essentially reverting back to humans being uncivilized animals, with no commanding authority except for those who are well off. The problem with my previous statement is that it is an oxymoron and I meant it to be so. Pure Liberitarianism can never happen and never will. There is no such thing as an abscence of authority. It is against modern human nature and can never happen without a destruction of civilization.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 10, 2009, 11:09:56 PM »

Well, unlike unelected government bureaucrats, the free market has constant oversight exercised upon it, and if the public doesn't like a business' activities, they can "vote" it out of business by not trading with it. Of the hundreds of thousands of federal bureaucrats, Americans only get to vote for 537 of them, and only on a 2-6 year basis. If asked to choose between the "magical" market and the incompetent state, I will go with the former.
Yeah because it is very realistic to expect the hordes of poor that would exist in a liberitarian society to stop buying food and other necessities from monopolies. Roll Eyes

First off, why do you think that poverty would be high in a libertarian society, when there wouldn't be a government prohibiting so many occupations? Second, how do you think a monopoly could exist in a libertarian society when there would be free entry into the marketplace? If food prices were too high, a competitor could easily jump in and sell food for cheaper and make a profit.[/quote]

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're confusing libertarianism with statism. Uncivilized animals don't respect property rights, and I don't think the solution for those who are well off having commanding authority is to centralize authority into a coercive monopoly that can easily be bought off by the rich.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There isn't an absence of authority under libertarianism; it just isn't monopolized as it is under statism. As the collapse of several civilizations has revealed in the past, the destruction of civilization is the ultimate result of statism.

Also, it would be appreciated if you posted this in the recommended thread rather than further diverting this thread.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 10, 2009, 11:16:23 PM »

Among other things, libertarianism (as opposed to simple rightism or social liberalism) wants to completely eliminate all regulation and oversight of, generally speaking, human activities.
Totally false.  Do you want govt regulation of EVERYTHING?  Of course not and it would be insulting if I constantly insinuated that you did in our communications.  Some things need to be regulated, it makes life easier on everybody if we all (well at least most of us) agree that USB is a great little universal connection.  It would suck if everybody that made machinery used different sized nuts and bolts.  Imagine the carnage that could ensue if every house used a different frequency of Alternating Current in their wires.  None of these standards came about due to govt regulation, they all came from private business getting together to make life easier for everybody (consumer, manufacturer, seller, repairer).  Even still, I can see a place for govt regulation of some things.  Sometimes it's just easier/safer for everybody involved.  Most libertairans want LESS govt regulation, not NONE.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Totally false.  Why are people so freaking ignorant about this point?  A world with out police and courts isn't a libertarian dream land, that is called ANARCHY.  Libertarians (little l) want police and the judicial system.  If you abuse somebody in a libertarian society you will go to jail (or otherwise penalized), not get away with it because you have a bigger gun.  I expect this kind of sh**t from some people, Verily, I thought you were better than that.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Except it doesn't.  You, just like everybody else, seems to think libertarianism and anarchy are the same thing.  They are not.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,079
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 10, 2009, 11:18:21 PM »

If you are wondering why everyone is arguing against you, it is because liberitarianism is essentially reverting back to humans being uncivilized animals, with no commanding authority except for those who are well off.
Totally false.  That is anarchy and is not what libertarians want.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Why do people keep getting this confused.  Is this like when people confuse socialism and communism?
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 11, 2009, 12:54:24 PM »

Well there is a difference between anarchy and libertarianism. I think SPC is more of an anarcho-capitalists than a libertarian though. Anarchy = no government and no respect for rights of others. Anarcho capitalism = no government, but respect for rights of others. Libertarianism = minimal amount of government to protect rights.

The funny thing about those radically opposed to libertarianism is they seem to think there is a big difference between Bush, McCain, and Obama. All 3 are Patriot Act loving, interventions, massive government spending, pro-corporate bailout statists. Obama promised more government transparency and no more Washington insiders and yet he failed to do that. Looks like the next 4 (or 8) years won't be much different from the last 8.

I guess it's a good thing there hasn't been anything libertarian about Bush or Obama since the last 8 years have been so wonderful and the next 4 are already off to a great start.

Maybe the problem with Ron Paul supporters is they are smart enough not to believe Obama's BS.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: March 11, 2009, 06:53:30 PM »

If you are wondering why everyone is arguing against you, it is because liberitarianism is essentially reverting back to humans being uncivilized animals, with no commanding authority except for those who are well off.
Totally false.  That is anarchy and is not what libertarians want.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Why do people keep getting this confused.  Is this like when people confuse socialism and communism?
I am only referring to SPC, who I know is an anarcho-capitalist, when I say liberitarianism. haha I'm not actually dumb enough to think all liberitarians are like SPC. I actually don't think the liberitarianism you believe in is mentally challenged.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: March 11, 2009, 07:49:10 PM »

Well there is a difference between anarchy and libertarianism. I think SPC is more of an anarcho-capitalists than a libertarian though. Anarchy = no government and no respect for rights of others. Anarcho capitalism = no government, but respect for rights of others. Libertarianism = minimal amount of government to protect rights.

Well, anarcho-capitalism is a smaller branch of libertarianism. The dominant minarchist branch believes in minimal government to protect rights, though I'm skeptical of how that could work in practice, given that every government has a tendency to expand beyond its "limits".
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: March 11, 2009, 08:09:28 PM »

Thus, it seems that the proper solution for health and education (which weren't problems prior to the 1960s and mid-19th century, respectively)

Arguing that there were no problems with healthcare in the United States until the 1960's is special.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.