Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflinePacktLikeFishees
Hit the bottom and escaped.


Registered: 10/03/08
Posts: 119
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Ron Paul Says Vote for: [Re: wildchild68]
    #9181066 - 11/04/08 02:54 AM (15 years, 4 months ago)

Fuck man, that's harsh. But hey, there's a chance I don't know what I'm talking about as well as I thought. I'll take your advice and come back in a couple of days after more research, but take some time off too and try to find out how to engage in discussion in a more pleasant way.

There are a couple of things that I said that need to be clarified:

The whole lone star thing is a joke. Maybe that didn't come off clear enough. No one can honestly believe that anyone can plot something like that out.

I wasn't "conflating" the terms. I was looking at the four main political ideals: conservatism (both fiscally and socially conservative), liberalism (fiscally and socially liberal),  libertarianism (fiscally conservative, socially liberal), and populism (fiscally liberal and socially conservative). Of course, those are their definitions in the broadest sense possible. I'm sorry if I mistook what libertarianism is, but it still stands that he is deeply conservative (http://voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm). The article is about John Kerry, but if you look at the bottom of the page, it provides the results of the system. As you'll see, Ron Paul is put down as the single most conservative congressman.

As for his views on evolution:
. He explicitly says that he doesn't "accept it as a theory." He also cites his creator. Admittedly, this isn't an important issue for most, but it is for me. I think his inability to accept evolution reflects on who he is.

And about libertarianism, I'll come back after I do more reading, but in my understanding, libertarians believe in total freedom both socially and economically. I see his economic freedom, but I don't see how he gives social freedom. Other than the abolishment of the war on drugs, he gives individual states the power to choose to allow or outlaw crucial social issues such as abortion, drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage. From what I've been led to believe, a true libertarian would not allow states to ban them because that would conflict with the inherent freedom of all people. Am I wrong here? I thought that displacing social issues from a federal to a state level is a conservative ideal whereas a libertarian ideal is that no authority should have the power to limit freedom. You could take this as a chance to educate me on this issue that you feel strongly about. Who knows, you might make a believer out of me.

As for economic policy, I feel a little ashamed. It's that simple. I clearly misinterpreted his economic policy which is to remove taxes while offsetting the lack of money by decreasing federal spending in many areas. While I don't agree with some areas (public services such as education), it by no means cripple the government. At the same time, he actually doesn't actually support a return to the gold standard; he supports an increased emphasis on gold and silver, once again making them viable as currency. Fair enough. My assumption was that the government would return to making all currency representative of gold supply which would remove the US from most international markets. Although it would make sense for the world to revert to the gold standard (at least on the surface; I currently do not know enough to estimate the repercussions of it), America itself cannot do it and continue to import and export as it does. In light of this, though, and your assertion that the gold standard is inherent in libertarianism, it once again provides more substance to my allegations.

Now, with all of that aside, you're lucky that I'm a reasonable person who's willing to admit fault. Your tone and manner were completely uncalled for and hopefully in no way represent what type of person you are. While my prior statements can easily be interpreted as lunacy (they were more of a conspiracy theory than anything else), your statements were steeped in unnecessary animosity.


--------------------
R.I.P. Clone High

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKrishnaDreamer
I bleed nicotine...
Male

Registered: 09/23/07
Posts: 4,133
Re: Ron Paul Says Vote for: [Re: wildchild68]
    #9181073 - 11/04/08 03:04 AM (15 years, 4 months ago)

word.

btw, ron paul is an official write in in the state of california, and is on the ballot in the states of  montana and louisiana.

so yes those votes will count.

source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023626.html

you can also confirm on votesmart.org

im gonna bump my thread i made on it a couple weeks ago in the pub.

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/9115490/an/0/page/0


--------------------
Everybody's a ninja...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian


Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 1 month
Re: Ron Paul Says Vote for: [Re: PacktLikeFishees]
    #9181258 - 11/04/08 06:20 AM (15 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

I wasn't "conflating" the terms. I was looking at the four main political ideals: conservatism (both fiscally and socially conservative), liberalism (fiscally and socially liberal),  libertarianism (fiscally conservative, socially liberal), and populism (fiscally liberal and socially conservative). Of course, those are their definitions in the broadest sense possible. I'm sorry if I mistook what libertarianism is, but it still stands that he is deeply conservative (http://voteview.com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm). The article is about John Kerry, but if you look at the bottom of the page, it provides the results of the system. As you'll see, Ron Paul is put down as the single most conservative congressman.



My first bit of advice to you is to throw out anything that plots people on only two criteria: liberal and conservative. It's simply put a useless construct. Where would Hitler go on a left-right axis? Where would Stalin go?

Left<----------------------------->Right

Both are totalitarians that believe in a leader with absolute power over all features of his society -- and yet many would say that Stalin should be at the leftmost extremity while Hitler should be on the rightmost extremity. How does this make sense? Where does that leave someone who believes government should have no power over any feature of society? The middle? Then where does that leave a centrist? Point being this axis is incapable of speaking to the whole spectrum of political ideas.

Quote:

. He explicitly says that he doesn't "accept it as a theory." He also cites his creator. Admittedly, this isn't an important issue for most, but it is for me. I think his inability to accept evolution reflects on who he is.



I'd think his record as a congressman for thirty years would speak more to who he is, both politically and otherwise, than his opinion on evolution.

Quote:


And about libertarianism, I'll come back after I do more reading, but in my understanding, libertarians believe in total freedom both socially and economically.



This is what you could call 'the shortcut to understanding libertarianism.' It's how someone who doesn't know and doesn't really care to know might have the concept briefly explained to them. But at the end of the day it's nothing more than a shortcut. The beautiful thing about libertarianism is that there's an incredibly consistent answer to the 'why?' that might be asked in response to any given policy position. The answer: libertarians are against the initiation of force and fraud.

Why do libertarians believe in free-markets? Because capitalism is simply the absence of government coercion (force) in the marketplace, which is the nexus of all voluntary market decisions. Capitalism is capitalism insofar as force and/or fraud do not prevail. If government FORCES employers to pay no less than wage X, the market has become that much less free (and, coincidentally, that much less efficient); if government FORCES employers to hire a certain percentage of people from certain underrepresented minority groups they are initiating force (or threatening it) against those same employers.

Why do libertarians believe in civil liberties? Because we believe you have exclusive ownership over your person and your property. We say you can print a newspaper that says anything you want because it is your capital goods that go into the making of that newspaper; any attempt by the government to stop you from making use of your property is an initiation of force against you and/or your property. We say drugs should be legal because you own your body and have the right to ingest whatsoever it is you please.

Why do libertarians -- real libertarians -- support a non-interventionist foreign policy? It's just the extension of the non-aggression axiom into the international realm. People have no right to use force against other people unless force has first been used against them -- and even then they are only allowed to use force against the initial transgressors; not against entities (states/groups/whatever) that are said to potentially pose a threat some decades hence. The Iraq Wars were unjust. The Vietnam War was unjust. The Korean War was unjust. All our myriad interventions between Korea and today have been unjust. Most of our interventions prior to Korea -- particularly World War I, the Spanish American War and Conquest of the Philippines, the North's war against the South, the Mexican-American War, etc.

Quote:

I see his economic freedom, but I don't see how he gives social freedom. Other than the abolishment of the war on drugs, he gives individual states the power to choose to allow or outlaw crucial social issues such as abortion, drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage. From what I've been led to believe, a true libertarian would not allow states to ban them because that would conflict with the inherent freedom of all people. Am I wrong here? I thought that displacing social issues from a federal to a state level is a conservative ideal whereas a libertarian ideal is that no authority should have the power to limit freedom. You could take this as a chance to educate me on this issue that you feel strongly about. Who knows, you might make a believer out of me.



Ron Paul was a candidate for president and has been a longtime member of the House of Representatives -- both federal offices. It's not his place as a congressman to advocate for state-level policies, so his end as a federal official has been to try to bring about maximum liberty from the federal government. Federalism is not the exclusive domain of conservatism -- in fact I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone in the moribund Republican Party outside Paul who REALLY believes in federalism.

I can tell you, though, that Paul is a personal believer in the non-aggression axiom. If he could snap his fingers prostitution would be legalized; drugs would be legalized; marriage would be completely out of government hands; etc. As to abortion this is something of a gray area for libertarians, but his philosophy is completely consistent with the central principle of 'no initiating force'; he just happens to believe that the fetus is a full person against whom the initiation of force cannot be countenanced. All the same he is against a blanket federal policy banning abortion on the federal level despite his beliefs because he knows it not to be a power granted to the federal government under the Constitution.

Quote:

I clearly misinterpreted his economic policy which is to remove taxes while offsetting the lack of money by decreasing federal spending in many areas. While I don't agree with some areas (public services such as education), it by no means cripple the government.



Just bare in mind that Ron Paul qua congressman is in favor of getting the federal government out of education primarily because it is not constitutional (see: not legal) for there to even be a Department of Defense. Had Ron Paul become president, however, you need not have worried about the abolition of public schools.

Quote:

At the same time, he actually doesn't actually support a return to the gold standard; he supports an increased emphasis on gold and silver, once again making them viable as currency. Fair enough.



What he supports is a repeal of legislation that makes illegal the use of gold and silver to pay off debts. In other words, he's not in favor of a law that says 'GOLD AND SILVER ARE NOW MONEY'; rather, he wants laws repealed that prohibit competition.

Quote:

My assumption was that the government would return to making all currency representative of gold supply which would remove the US from most international markets. Although it would make sense for the world to revert to the gold standard (at least on the surface; I currently do not know enough to estimate the repercussions of it), America itself cannot do it and continue to import and export as it does. In light of this, though, and your assertion that the gold standard is inherent in libertarianism, it once again provides more substance to my allegations.



I wish I had the leisure to speak at length on this topic, as I have on this forum in the past, but time is short. It will have to suffice to say, for now, that money is not originally a government entity; it arises naturally out of primitive market exchange, and, while many things have become money throughout history (beads, shells, iron), more often than not gold and silver have become the predominant medium of exchange in society.

What you say would happen under a gold standard would be correct if a government law were passed tomorrow that said 'Only gold and silver may be used as legal tender -- starting now'. This is why Ron Paul merely supports the repeal of legislation that prohibits competition in the money market.

As to other questions let me just redirect you to the Education page of the Campaign for Liberty, Ron Paul's organization, where you'll find an absolute wealth of resources. For a debunking of myths about the gold standard you may want to try the bottom-most link of the Sound Money page.

All for now~


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ralph Nader to Debate Ron Paul Ancalagon 718 5 08/01/04 10:56 AM
by Tao
* It Can't Happen Here - By Rep. Ron Paul usefulidiot 584 3 12/22/04 06:26 PM
by Annapurna1
* Why Americans should vote Libertarian allmakescombined 247 0 10/05/04 06:26 PM
by allmakescombined
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,413 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* foundation of libertarianism followed to it's logical conclusion = anarchy
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 4,761 45 10/12/04 02:27 PM
by Anonymous
* Libertarians & Greens to Debate in Miami
( 1 2 3 all )
Ancalagon 4,455 49 10/03/04 10:12 PM
by Gijith
* To Americans here who don't vote:
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 4,063 39 03/14/03 02:32 PM
by Innvertigo
* Libertarianism BuzzDoctor 1,488 19 09/09/02 09:58 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,803 topic views. 4 members, 4 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.