The problem with many Ron Paul supporters

[SPC]

No the problem with many Ron Paul supporters is that they support a vile and anti-human ideology and have no touch with reality (other than that pseudo-reality backed up by mysticism a certain branch of economics).

I see, so theft and murder are humanitarian?
As for the issue at hand, while I disagree with what he is doing, there is a valid argument for it without him being a hypocrite. I also disagree with him on abortion, immigration, and the Constitution's effectiveness. However, that's still miles ahead of anyone else in politics.

[SPC]

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.

[SPC]

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Emphasis mine.

[SPC]

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.

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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.

 

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.

[SPC]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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?

[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.

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.

[SPC]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[SPC]

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".

[SPC]

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".

Because we elect Republicrats instead of people who care about the constitution. With the right people (such as Ron Paul), government won't expand. We just need to stop putting the wrong people in, which is easier said than done.

I'm skeptical when the Republicrats give us McCain and Obama and tell us we are free because we get to pick one of them.

But given that the Republicrats have rigged an already rigged system in their favor, I wouldn't count on that happening. Since more honest people tend to go into non-political professions, that usually leaves the dishonest to be politicians. We had a Constitution once and it failed, so I don't see how returning to it would prevent big government from happening again.

[SPC]

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".

Because we elect Republicrats instead of people who care about the constitution. With the right people (such as Ron Paul), government won't expand. We just need to stop putting the wrong people in, which is easier said than done.

I'm skeptical when the Republicrats give us McCain and Obama and tell us we are free because we get to pick one of them.

One of my many problems with liberitarians is that they often put Democrats and Republicans in the same categories. That is just stupid, we have clear and obvious differences. Statism is not an ideology.

Okay, let's take a quiz....
1. Which president has promised and delivered hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts in a futile attempt to "cure" the depression, Bush or Obama?
2. Which president has promised to stay in Afghanistan, and have promised to keep a significant number of troops in Iraq, Bush or Obama?
3. Which president has abused presidential signing statements, Bush or Obama?
4. Which president has done nothing to advance sound money, or even discuss the issue, Bush or Obama?
5. Which president has gone through several controversial cabinet nominees and members, Bush or Obama?
6. Which president has drastically increased the national debt, Bush or Obama?

I could go on and on with this, but if you answered any of the above questions, you would be correct. Still think there's a significant difference between the major parties?