Sam Seder makes an interesting point. He says that Paul isn't a libertarian perse. He simply wants to dismantle the Federal government. And basically States can do what they like.
Why Not Vote For Ron Paul? - YouTube
Printable View
Sam Seder makes an interesting point. He says that Paul isn't a libertarian perse. He simply wants to dismantle the Federal government. And basically States can do what they like.
Why Not Vote For Ron Paul? - YouTube
ANDREW SULLIVAN:
Why Ron Paul Is Right And Barack Obama Is Wrong About Iran
One of the key things that Ron Paul has contributed to our discourse is the notion that we should try and look at conflict from the point of view of our foe. You'd think this would be obvious if we are attempting to influence, say, Iran's behavior, to understand their fears, their baseline interests and their ideology. So far, all we hear about is their ideology. But let's broaden our moral imagination in ways not allowed in the Washington Post.
Imagine that three scientists working on the US nuclear arsenal were assassinated in the streets of Chicago or Washington or Los Angeles by agents of Iran. Now imagine that an explosion took place at one of our nuclear facilities - also engineered by Iran. Also imagine that Iran was capable of blockading US ports to cripple the US economy. Imagine the dollar collapsing because of this and a new depression initiated. What do you think Mitt Romney would be saying? I suspect he would be saying that Iran has already declared war on the US.
But all these things have happened in Iran, probably by the hands of Israeli intelligence, perhaps by the US, or some combo of the two. Is it surprising that the Iranians are throwing rhetoric around, even if much of it is empty? Of course not. Vali Nasr argues that Iran is already on a war-footing because of this:Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as acts of war.Who alone among the presidential candidates gets this? Only Ron Paul. Bob Wright has a must-read on the potential president's lonely sanity on this question. Jon Rauch also notes that the debate we're having about Iran is very very similar to the debate we once had about China's nuclear capacity:Fifty years ago, [China] was the Iran of its day, a rising regional power that was radical, ideological, boldly antagonistic. It fought the U.S. in Korea, attacked India and Taiwan, supported violent insurgencies and more. Its leader, Mao Zedong, mused that killing half of mankind might be a price worth paying to make the world socialist. Understandably alarmed, some of President Eisenhower’s advisers urged a pre-emptive nuclear attack. (Ike wisely forbore.) President Kennedy said a nuclear China would dominate Southeast Asia and "so upset the world political scene" as to be "intolerable."Notice the classic Kennedy recklessness in foreign policy (he was George W Bush avant la lettre), and the characteristic Eisenhower sanity. Now look at the history. Since China's adoption of nuclear status, it has actually behaved more responsibly abroad, not less. Jon makes a very persuasive case that nuclear weapons really don't give countries much of an edge, and, if anything, tend to calm them down, especially if they are in a region where they have foes who do have such weapons.
The Obama administration has foolishly decreed that it will never allow a nuclear-armed Iran. It's foolish because at some point, Iran will get one, and the US will therefore have to go to war either to stop it or to punish Iran for it. The obvious option - containment - is foregone.
Obama also argues that he opposes Iran's nukes because of proliferation in the region. At which point one must loudly cough "Ahem." Only one country in the region has illegally, in defiance of internatinal law and the NPT and US policy, has nuclear weapons and it's Israel, not any Arab state. More absurdly, the US government has a formal policy of never acknowledging this fact. At one point in the not-so-distant past, the US government was committed to the view that Iraq had nukes but Israel didn't.
When will the US evolve a sane policy in the Middle East? One that advances our interests, avoids a catastrophic global religious war, and bases it judgment on history and statecraft rather than religion and a US-Israel alliance that, since the end of the Cold War, has become increasingly unhealthy to both parties? Less Kennedy, more Eisenhower, please.
Environmentalism poses a problem for libertarian ideology
By Matt Bruenig On December 21, 2011 · In Environment
George Monbiot had an article in the Guardian on Monday about bastardised libertarianism and its inability to understand the real freedoms being fought for by environmentalists and social justice advocates. However, Monbiot’s treatment of environmentalism’s threat to libertarianism was a bit sloppy. He got sucked into the negative freedom and positive freedom debate, and although he worked his way to the correct conclusion ultimately, I felt like the clarity was lacking.
So I want to explain more clearly just how much environmentalists stick in the side of libertarian ideology. First, consider what libertarians of the sort Monbiot criticizes are really about philosophically: they favor a procedural justice account of the world based heavily on property rights. This is the newest face of libertarianism. Gone is the appeal to utility and desert. The modern libertarians try to prop up their political ideas almost solely through a rigid formalism of property rights.
I have written before about the problem with the procedural accounts of property rights, but here I want to just accept the libertarian property rights premise. Somehow individuals can grab up pieces of the world and exclude those pieces from everyone else forever. Once those individuals become owners of their respective property, nobody else can touch that property or do anything whatsoever to that property without their consent. Coming onto my property without my consent is a form of trespass under this picture. Doing anything to my property — whether it be painting it, dumping stuff on it, or causing some other harm to it — is totally off limits.
So environmentalists point out that carbon emissions are warming the planet, one consequence of which is that harm will be done to the property of others. Most environmentalists — being the leftists that they generally are — do not make too much of the property rights issues, but one certainly could. Coal plants release particulates into the air which land on other people’s property. But no permission is ever granted for that. Coal plants do not contract with every nearby property owner to allow for them to deposit small amounts of particulate matter on their neighbors’ land. They are guilty of a form of property trespass.
Beyond that, all sorts of industrial processes have environmental externalities that put things into the air or the water that ultimately makes its way into the bodies of others. This is a rights-infringing activity under the procedure-focused libertarian account. The act of some industry is causing pieces of matter to land on me and enter into my body. But I never contracted with them to allow them to do so.
The air and the atmosphere is an especially problematic issue for libertarians. Who owns those things? Libertarians might try to argue that you own the air above your land, but air — or the matter that it is made up of — does not stay above your land; it moves around the world. Any matter released into the air is sure to find itself to someone else’s property, causing a violation. The atmosphere might seem like something nobody owns and therefore something anybody can dump things into. But with climate change, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the world to warm, the consequences of which will include damage to the property of others all over the world. Yet again though, greenhouse gas emitters have not contracted with every single property owner in the world, making their emissions a violation of a very strict libertarian property rights ideology.
The short of is that environmentalists totally smash open the idea that property rights theories can really account for who is permitted to do what with the land that they own. Almost all uses of land will entail some infringement on some other piece of land that is owned by someone else. So how can that ever be permitted? No story about freedom and property rights can ever justify the pollution of the air or the burning of fuels because those things affect the freedom and property rights of others. Those actions ultimately cause damage to surrounding property and people without getting any consent from those affected. They are the ethical equivalent — for honest libertarians — of punching someone in the face or breaking someone else’s window.
That is why environmentalism is such a huge problem for libertarians, and it is no doubt why so many of them are skeptical of the effects of climate change or other environmental issues. Admitting that someone’s use of their own property almost certainly entails an infringement on someone else’s property makes the whole libertarian position basically impossible to act out in the real world. A landowner could never get individual contracts with literally every single person that might ever be affected by the owner’s land-use (e.g. operating a coal-burning power plant). But a libertarian that was honest about environmental externalities would require such a landowner to undertake precisely that impossible task.
The Return of the Chickenhawks:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...-chickenhawks/
Ron Paul Heated CNN Interview:
Ron Paul Heated CNN Interview - YouTube
Why would Dana Bash say she is "worried" that Paul will "continue on long into the Spring and Summer...." Seems a bit odd that she'd be worried.
I mean, worried for Romney? The Republican Party? Again, why would she use that word???
» CNN's Dana Bash "Worried" About Ron Paul's Success Alex Jones' Infowars - YouTube
Ron Paul's Moment of Racial Clarity
His recent comments about institutional racism defy the GOP norm.
http://www.theroot.com/views/ron-pau...s-racism-issue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faldur
LMAO....I'm convinced of Bens political schizophrenia. He loves Ron Paul.........He loves him NOT.
Doesn't make him a bad guy, but it makes him...........well.........
"undecided".
Imagine Ben being randomly interviewed by a TV reporter? "Who are you voting for sir?"
At the 10 min and 20 sec mark Paul talks about institutional racism:
Ron Paul Highlights at the ABC / Yahoo / WMUR Debate in New Hampshire - YouTube
Come on American people are way to dumb to elect Ron Paul as President.
Long thought to be vice selfishness is a behavior trait that is generally frowned upon in public, but not among libertarians. Ayn Rand has sought to teach us that selfishness is not a vice, but the opposite; i.e. selfishness is a virtue. Libertarians long for a world where every individual is allowed to pursue and indeed does pursue her own self-interests without interference and of course without interfering in the self-interested pursuits of others.
“Self-interest” is interpreted broadly within libertarian circles. Your self-interests, for example, may include educating your children, participating in the local Parent Teachers Association, giving to charity etc. as long as, in your judgment, you gain a positive return from these activities.
The libertarian conceit is that if everyone pursued their individual self-interests without interference or interfering with the pursuits of others, society will move toward an equilibrium where everyone’s projects and desires are optimally satisfied.
Only in a world where there are no conflicting interests can we have everybody pursuing their own interests without interference and without interfering with the pursuits of others. In the real world, where there are conflicting interests, libertarians require those pursuits be subject to a rational constraint. Libertarians speak of rational self-interests. For example, a libertarian might say that fraud is an irrational pursuit because if you’re caught and word spreads it can be bad for your business. Putting any sort of self-imposed restriction on pursuable self-interests will lessen the number of conflicts, but the rationality restriction will not make conflicts vanish. When there is a conflict between two rational pursuits, the one that survives the conflict is the more rational of the two. If this seems like a shady way to define “more rational” it is. It is essentially trial by fire which might be the ideal way to choose a fireproof fabric but is not the ideal way to decide what is or isn’t rational. The problem for the libertarian is that she would prefer not to appeal to a third party, a government say, or a judge to authoritatively arbitrate a resolution of conflict. In libertarianism, if a conflict arises because two people are pursuing their own rational self-interests, the resolution is most ideally settled through unhampered competition. For the libertarian there should be no big brother who steps in, interferes and mucks up the natural flow of events.
Why not apply the modifier “rational” to the way the society moderates conflict between interests rather than to the interests themselves? For example, it may be rational for society to outlaw fraud but irrational to outlaw all forms of lying. Or it may be rational to settle which hand cream is best through market competition but irrational to decide border disputes by having the disagreeing parties compete for the disputed lands. The problem with this solution is that it allows a third party to step in and decide what is rational. Libertarians would regard that as a resolution of last resort.
It’s the introduction of the term “rational” that creates no end of confusion and difficulty in libertarianism. If everyone could pursue their own self-interests without interference and without interfering in the interests of others, our world would be perfect and there would be no conflicting interests. If the world isn’t perfect, we have to figure out how to rationally regulate our conflicts. How is that done? The libertarian says we simply restrain ourselves by agreeing to only pursue rational self-interests. But what are those? They’re the ones that optimize everyone’s success as we pursue our own individual projects. But how are we to know what those rational self-interests are if we do not consider our interconnected relationship with each other? No one can, by themselves, sit down and judge a self-interest to be one that optimizes the pursuits of everyone else without consulting everyone else. Figuring out what self-interests are rational, in the libertarian sense, is a group endeavor. Yet a libertarian demands the autonomy to decide for herself which of her self-interests are rational and which are not. That even sounds right under the usual interpretation of “rational”. But the usual interpretation won’t do the work required of it by libertarian philosophy.
Nevertheless, libertarians insist their philosophy is coherent and if everyone followed it, society would reach an equilibrium where our liberties are optimized. If true, it is difficult to predict what this equilibrium would look like or in just what sense of optimality our desires will be fulfilled. In the libertarian vision this optimal state is free of “big government.” There will be no government restrictions on trade and all money will be backed by precious metals.
Whereas libertarians see government as an entity that interferes with their self-interested pursuits, others see government as people collectively pursuing their own self-interests. Some of those interests include maintaining the availability of fresh water and safe food, maintaining public safety, public schools, public transportation, police and fire departments, etc. etc. These are generally the things for which libertarians have little use. It’s not that libertarians are against people self-interestedly working collectively toward a common goal; that’s what a business is. The distinction is ... well it’s difficult to discern what the distinction is. Unions and democratic governments are organizations of people united to pursue their own interests, realizing that compromise is sometimes necessary in those pursuits to minimize conflict and maximize individual liberties. Why do libertarians regard the solidarity of laborers to be an irrational interest, but regard the open storage of toxic waste water near fresh water wells to be rational?
Is selfishness a virtue? Socio-biologists attempt to locate altruism in gene complexes that selfishly pursue their reproductive interests. But genes cannot decide for themselves which strategies are rational, that decision is left to the ecological system as a whole and the gods of luck and contingency.
The problem in a nutshell. Not just with libertarianism, but with every utopian social philosophy. None of them can work & tolerate deviance at the same time. They're pipe dreams. All very interesting for academic banter, but any attempt to base governance on any of it is simply out of the question when looking for any kind of "rational" solution to anything. It can't work because there's 6 or 7 billion people on the planet & no 2 people think alike.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I make a distinction between the basic libertarian ideal & the fanaticism of Ayn Rand's egoist philosophy. She didn't invent libertarianism, & the libertarian ideal doesn't deny the existence of altruism. She did. If everything is based on self interest alone, there's no moral code. The real ideal doesn't declare the collective society inconsequential. She did. The ideal isn't necessarily based on acquiring wealth & property. Egoism is. There's no libertarian ideal that seeks to enslave mankind to the gold mystique. The egoist cult does. And yes, they're a cult. I refuse to call them libertarian because they aren't. They're intolerant absolutists, & there's nothing libertarian about that. The attempt to usurp the term is just a lame PR ploy. So is the blatant lie in changing their official name from egoist to "objectivist". Well fuck that! There's nothing objective about this batshit crazy nonsense, & I refuse to surrender a legitimate word in the English language to a bunch of assholes who are just trying to convince the public that they're something else. It's dishonest, & you won't catch me calling them anything but egoist (her term).
Ron Paul has been a politician for a long time. He's gotten real good at hiding his cult affiliation. Regardless of how tangled up in the cult he is though, his positions aren't conservative. He's radical. There's nothing conservative about trying to turn all existing systems & traditions on their head to match some ideology that has never existed in practice.
Hello hippiefried.
Indeed libertarianism may trace its roots back at least as far as the liberalism of the Enlightenment that inspired our founders and figured significantly in the thinking of those who overthrew the monarchies and tyrannies of Europe to establish republican forms of government. Skipping forward a couple hundred years, modern libertarianism grounds itself more narrowly in the now outdated, totally unquantifiable, economic mumbo-jumbo of a handful of turn of the century Austrian "economists."
Modern Rand-type-libertarians (the ones you call egoists) believe the the only constraint that should be placed on ego is the self-constraint of what the ego deigns of its own accord to be rational. Rational egos will of course clash, people will be hurt but the strong will survive and the society that evolves will be the one the maximizes everyone's liberty. Right! (It kills me that the people who push this sort of bullshit Darwinism don't believe in Darwinism in the context of biology.) But what is the role of rationalism here? Is the self-constraint imposed by "rational" self-interests supposed to somehow guide the whole system to a more "rational" society. If so, how can one ego decide for itself what actions are rational without consultation and negotiation with other egos. Isn't the agreement to regulate and modify one's actions based on consultation and negotiation with others agreeing to regulation by the group. And if we are going to stake our well-beings on agreements with others, shouldn't we have a way to enforce the agreements? The word "rational," so beloved of objectivists, is fact corrosive to their philosophy. The appeal of egoism is obvious. That it can't work is obvious. So Ayn sprinkled on some rationality, without ever adequately explaining how the term can be non-vacuously interpreted within egoism without destroying egoism.
Deciding what are rational actions and behaviors is an ever ongoing group project.
If you set aside reason, which these libertarians assume everyone uses, how do libertarians deal with money? Self-interest is elevated to a supreme position but individuals don't mint money, be it coins or paper. Do they assume that the value of the currency in which they transact their self-interests is objectively determined? But by whom? Banks? Who owns and runs the bank and monetary policy? Are there interest rates, and who sets them? I understand the fantasy of libertarian society, but I don't understand the reality.
Ha ha ha! I, actually, try to be fair and balanced -- :)Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
I mean, Ron Paul is a politician. Enough said -- ha ha!
I've always said that I agree with Ron Paul on certain issues. And on other issues I strongly disagree. I don't agree with him that the federal government should be, well, essentially dismantled.
But he's the only candidate on either side of the aisle, so to speak, that is speaking out against the wars.
I mean, who can people rally behind if they're against endless wars?
And, too, whereas Obama is atrocious with respect to civil liberties Ron Paul is quite exceptional.
And I, too, agree with Paul with respect to opposing the Patriot Act.
Ron Paul on Extending the Patriot Act - Warrantless Wiretapping and Spying is Bad Policy - YouTube
Ron Paul’s False Founding Narrative:
http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/13...ing-narrative/
Damn that evil collective! Everybody's so irrational except me...Quote:
Deciding what are rational actions and behaviors is an ever ongoing group project.
Stavros,
You're making a mistake by assuming that the egoist cult is speaking the same English language as anyone else in the English speaking world. All their major buzz words (objective, reason, rational, etc...) are PR revisions that bear no resemblance to anything you think you learned in school. It's a way of keeping the lights off. They're like cockroaches.
Kristol: Let Ron Paul Go:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...go_617074.html
How Rick Santorum Misunderstands Ron Paul:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...n-paul/251610/
Again, I'm tryin' to be Fair and Balanced:
Ron Paul's False Founding Narrative - YouTube
Author Tim Wise on Paul.... Interesting.
Ron Paul is A-OK with the TSA if Privately Run - YouTube
So Ron Paul DID Know All About Racist Newsletters:
So Ron Paul DID Know All About Racist Newsletters - YouTube
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?
GOP plotting to oust Ron Paul? - YouTube
Ron Paul's view on abortion:
Ron Paul's view on abortion - YouTube
Peter Thiel Is Ron Paul's Billionaire Sugar Daddy:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...r-daddy/48933/
Ron's got my vote for sure
But Ron's an idiot. He's a died in the wool libertarian who thinks it's just fine for big government to tell women what to do with their own bodies. He believes there should be no regulations protecting you or your property from the pollution and poisons produced by your neighbor's factory, yet he's willing to have government forcefully prevent a woman from undergoing a medical procedure to have a blastocyst vacuumed from her uterus.
on the contrary Ron believes in the US Constitution and more limited government, he also believes in private property rights but he also believes that what you do on your own property is your own business just so long as you don't hurt anyone which means he would be punishing nuclear reactor owners like GE if, for example, their reactors leaked and caused the surrouding population to get sick as a result (current rules and regs don't hold GE responsible and the tax payers always foot the bill for their screw ups and Ron is Pro-Life (if I delivered more than 4,000 babies I probably would be too) but he believes abortion is state's rights issue though he does support the morning after pill for rape victims
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Gouki
I never fail to be amazed at about half of US voters to desire candidates like Ron Paul why? This guy is different but he's crazy.
http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm
The choices are, well, very limited. I mean, extremely limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
Look at what the American people are presented with: Mitt, Newt, Rick, President Obama or Paul.
America have over 300 million people and the choices are narrowed down to essentially 5 corporate and corporate-backed candidates.
And even the opinions among the 5 don't vary that much. What separates Paul is his supposed anti-war appeal, as it were.
He's good on some things and, well, quite awful on others.
But, again, the choices aren't that broad. So... I mean, Obama is most likely the most moderate. More moderate than Romney. So, most liberal and social democrats will vote for (not necessarily support) Obama.
We need more political parties in America. We need a more COMPETITIVE race.
If you look at American public opinion polls (America is a heavily polled society) the majority of Americans are what's called: social democratic.
Which so-called Party or presidential candidate serve those social democratic interests? Well, none.
Anyway, both parties are way to the right of the majority of Americans. That's why there's a democratic deficit in America. Which is: a wide gulf between public policy and public opinion.
We bear witness to a daily attack on meaningful democracy in America.
The story at USA Today:
25% of super PAC money coming from just 5 rich donors:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ors/53196658/1
Some people don't even think he's a libertarian. He just hates the federal government. Not necessarily state governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
And, too, he isn't against war perse. I mean, he has said that America shouldn't attack Iran. But doesn't seem to care if Israel does.
And Paul appears to be a Christian zealot. I mean, he'd be a far right-wing President.
Anyway, he won't win the nomination. And, too, he's retiring.
So, look for RAND to take his place -- ha ha! :)
yup Ron has started to set the freedom brush fires in the minds of young men and women nationwide leaving the gate open for Rand in 2016 IMO
Freedom brush fires? Listen to yourself. You should get yourself deprogrammed as soon as possible.
lol I did ;)
This is why government work is pretty simple. One should be a simple administrator. And public policy should reflect the popular will -- :)
Are Americans becoming less not more conservative? - YouTube
Actor Russell Means endorses Ron Paul on some pretty profound reasons:
Russell Means Endorses Ron Paul - YouTube
I know he was in Last of the Mohicans, but "actor"? Do you know who he is? He was one of the early militant leaders of the American Indian Movement, In the '70s. He was inside, with founder Dennis Banks, When they siezed the town of Wounded Knee, South Dakota in 1973, & held it against the FBI, US Marshall Service, State Police, National Guard, etc for 71 days. All charges against those 2 were dismissed by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Means is a real smart guy, but his agenda is a bit different than most of the rest of the country, including Ron Paul.