I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2013, 02:58 PM
I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Alright, this might be a bit of a rant, but I will try to make some persuasive agruments here.

First off, I hate Ron Paul. I dislike most politicians, but Ron Paul just makes my blood boil? "But why? He's just a man fighting for what he believes in?"
Well, yes, that's true. I guess I don't hate the man Ron Paul, but rather the cult of libertarians (a large part on 4chan) that make him out to be this god, even though he has some messed up religious beliefs.

Ron Paul does not accept evolution, is pro-life for purely religious reasons, but on top of that, he's a hypocrite. He first made the UN out to be this organisation that the US shouldn't even be in, basically calling them the devil, but when ronpaul.com is a domain that's already taken, who does he go to? That's right, the United Nations.

But, you know, most, if not all politicians are hypocrites on at least one point. True, but these supporters of his just don't care. They just say that while they might sometimes disagree with him (on rather important social issues I might add), he's still the guy we want leading the damn US of A.

Now for libertarians in general. The whole idea that free market capitalism creates liberty for all is a misleading premise that is demonstrably false. Just look at England as it was just industrialising. No social programs and hardly any laws against exploitation on labourers. What was the result of that? Huge amounts of wealth for factory owners, abuse and underpayment of factory workers and even child labour.

It's obvious that business and the people leading them will do anything to accumulate more wealth, even if it's at the expense of the workers.

But there's still freedom, right? People still get to chase their dreams and ideals without limitations, right? Well, not really. In a capitalist society, wealth means power and social status. So the people with more wealth have more power and status, and thus have the means to accumulate wealth better than those who don't have as much. It's a self-perpetuating system.

This loss of equality creates a loss of freedom for the poor. While most might think equality and freedom are two seperate matters entirely that need to be held in a balance, they are actually quite similar and very dependant on each other. For instance, if two people are unequal and one has power over the other in some way, the person who is being subjugated immediately loses some of their freedom.

What then is liberty? Liberty means, as I have just stated, equality. What then in capitalism is prohibiting this equality? That is social hierarchy. The hierarchy in a capitalist society is brought about by wealth differences. Workers must listen to their bosses, or they get fired. I think this is fundamentally against the principle of freedom.

I am an anarcho-socialist who believes in census democracy and a classless society with worker self-management. I believe this to be true libertarianism. I honestly haven't the time to explain this further, but I hope I have explained it well.

I trust you guys to be intelligent, but just in case: do not attack me just on the basis that I am anti-capitalist, do not strawman me to be communist and, for the love of god, do not tell me that anarchism in any form is idealistic and utopian, because even though it might be, I don't think believing in a better world is naive, rather it is pessimistic to deny the possibility of something working out when we haven't even tried it yet.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
First, the problem is people use the term 'libertarian' to mean lots of different things, and you get right-wing nut jobs who label themselves libertarian, even though their views are the opposite of liberty. So I use the term in the sense of classic liberal, in the line of Locke, Bastiat, Jefferson. I go to lots of libertarian events and meet lots of people with similar views, and the reality is we share only one thing in common: we object to using threats of violence and physical force to coerce people into doing things against their will. Some libertarians are left, and their goal is equality. Some are right, and they have other goals. But, if they both agree to achieve their goals through peaceful, non-violent means, then they are libertarian. Most libertarians I know, like myself, identify as left, and our thinking is much more aligned with liberals. The reason we like Ron Paul so much is not that he shares our world view. Ron Paul's world view is exactly the opposite of mine in every possible way. He's a homophobic Christian conservative, with a racist past. BUT, in everything I've ever seen him do, he has been true to the classic liberal of rejecting the use of violence and force to make people do it his way.

Therefore, as a classic liberal who values liberty, say I had to choose between 2 candidates: 1) one had the same world view and goals as I, and I agreed with him in every way on every issue, BUT, he wanted to accomplish those goals by passing laws and using the police to force people to do what we think they be doing, and 2) the other, like Ron Paul, was exactly the opposite in every way and we disagreed on every issue, BUT he agreed to not use violence and force to get his way, I would vote for the latter, every time. Because that's what classical liberal means.

One example is when the 2012 Presidential race kicked off in Iowa, and before the first vote in the land (the Iowa Straw poll), the GOP asked all candidates to back a pledge to support a law banning gay marriage, every candidate signed the pledge EXCEPT Ron Paul, who, in front of an audience of fellow homophobic Christian conservatives who think like him, he said that if elected he would veto such a law because, although he doesn't approve of it, he doesn't feel it's his right to force his view on others. He was boycotted by the GOP establishment, and lost that first vote by <1%, meaning all he had to do was pledge to back a law banning gay marriage (something he couldn't stand anyway) and he would have won that first vote.

So, I am not arguing for capitalism, or against communism. In fact, a lot of self-identified libertarians, like Noam Chomsky, DO favor communism. The only thing a libertarian opposes is using force to make people do things against their will. We believe that reciprocity is the basis for all rules of morality, and therefore, any law that subjects a person to hard, physical violence, when that person is not himself engaging in it, is non-reciprocal and thus immoral. If someone tries to physically rape a woman, yes, she has the right to appoint defenders (police) to respond with defensive force and stop the act. But if someone is sitting in his own home growing opium and not using violence against anyone, the people do not have a right to send the police in and haul him off at gunpoint. Such a law is non-reciprocal, and thus immoral.

Now most libertarians I know are pragmatic and we accept that for the foreseeable future those of us who believe in peaceful, voluntary interactions will be a tiny minority. After all, every human is born with the instinct to use force to get what he wants, so becoming a libertarian requires stifling this basic human nature. Therefore, the compromise most of us accept is that when a non-libertarian passes non-reciprocal laws that threaten non-violent people with violence, we ask that the jurisdiction be limited (ie state and local) and that you grant everybody the right of freedom of movement, so anyone who finds that law too oppressive can relocate to escape it. IMO, this compromise is fair, and isn't asking much. But, I'm constantly debating liberals who insist that THEY know better how people should live their lives, and they need a national law to save those rednecks in Mississippi from themselves. When I ask “why not make it a state law”, they always insist that it's unimaginable to let people 1,000 miles away live their lives differently, and we need a law that covers every square inch of land where they can legally live, to make sure they have no way of escaping the law. And when I point this out, they always fall back on 1 things: pollution of air or water, and insist that because this this one thing is an inter-state issue where what one state does directly affects the others, therefore, it justifies making EVERYTHING an inter-state issue. But, imo, it's just an excuse to hide the real motivations.

The one thing you said that's wrong is that liberty is equality. No, it comes from the latin liber, meaning freedom. Liberty and libertarianism means one thing: free choice. Besides, why do liberals obsess only with money? What if 2 sisters are born into the same circumstances, but one happens to be beautiful, and the other homely. It's a sad reality that the pretty one will have much more influence over men and be given a lot more opportunities, and chances are, she will end up more successful. When you say liberty=equality, that means the only way to achieve liberty is to throw acid on the face of the pretty one to equalize things, and that it is a crime to let her go through life with her special, unequal privilege. I don't see how this liberty. I see it as jealousy. Sure, I want equality, probably as much as you do. And I want a system that ensures equality of opportunity AND equality of results. BUT, I oppose using violence to achieve it by taking the assets of those who have more at gunpoint (be those assets financial, beauty or other).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like frankksj's post
15-11-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Thanks for responding so extensively, it's quite interesting.

I would like to first go into the point you made about equality and liberty. I claimed that they were reliant upon each other, and in the context of your example I'd like to reply with this: The one girl has better chances because she is prettier, that is true. But should we allow her to take all for herself and leave nothing for the rest? In free market capitalism, she would be allowed to do that. Now, male attention is not a basic human need, but having a decent income sure is. I think people who do more (or are simply more skilled at it because they may be talented) should be given more than those who don't achieve as much for whatever reason. I think that reward based on contribution is a great thing, but in free market capitalism that libertarianism, in its Ron Paul kind of meaning, so avidly promotes, the lesser person would suffer a great amount.

Regarding the terminology of libertarianism, if we say libertarianism means finding a peaceful way to a goal, then hasn't the term become useless? I can say: "Atheism means me picking up a glass of water". If we all agreed on that, fine, but it would still stray from the terminology. It might be semantics, but if libertarianism can mean both striving for something I think is unjust as well as striving for my ideals, but in a certain way, then the word has become meaningless. This, however, is semantics for the most part.

You said something else: You do not agree with ron Paul's ideals, but you thik just because he doesn't use violence he deserves your vote? If I could choose between a violent man who shares my ideals and a peaceful man whom I completely disagree with, I would choose neither and fight for a third option, not create a society which I do not want simply because no violence is used. I have always found a "lesser of two evils" way of thinking quite silly with regards to politics.

The last thing i want to address is where you said that Noam Chomsky is a communist.
I feel like this is not really something up for argument, but rather a clarification. I don't know if this applies to you, but a lot of people seem to confuse socialism (and anarcho-socialism) with communism. Communism is, like Chomsky said, a fake socialism. It is socialism, yet it has a (authoritarian) state, which is a big contradiction. Communism directly shatters both liberty and equality, while socialism in its true form has no (centralised) state and thus does not and cannot impose its will on citizens.

I think that this is a debate that must be had more often. We need to define what our liberties are and how we are going to achieve it. And to paraphrase Chomsky, libertarianism in it's American form [e.g. Ron Paul] is tyranny and in direct opposition of what a libertarian is anywhere else.

I simply cannot accept any claim that says that free market capitalism is fair. I do appreciate your time though!



P.S.: There's a video on YouTube of someone explaining why a stateless capitalist society, a capitalist society with a state and a socialist society with a state are not preferrable. It's about 20 minutes long and there are 2 more parts in which the guy explains more about it. In case you're interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIvn8qjyrzk

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 08:57 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Thank you, also, for a productive debate.

(15-11-2013 07:36 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  if we say libertarianism means finding a peaceful way to a goal, then hasn't the term become useless? I can say: "Atheism means me picking up a glass of water".

But the core issue that defines atheists and which is the very meaning of the term is “the rejection of belief in the existence of deities”. It has nothing to do with water. On the other hand, the very meaning of libertarianism, the one thing that all libertarians agree upon and which defines one as libertarian is, according to the dictionary: “a person who maintains the doctrine of free will”. Meaning that people must not be forced to do things against their will. The dictionary also defines liberty as: “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.” And a libertarian is one who advocates liberty. You'll note that nowhere in any of those definitions, neither in dictionaries nor encyclopedias nor Wikipedia, does “free-market capitalism” define libertarianism. In fact if you look it up on Wikipedia it also says: “While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management”.

My pre-libertarian background was a left-leaning liberal. I've debated liberals thousands of times, and every single time we disagree it always boils down to one issue: they want to use force to make people do things against their will, and I do not. I've yet to see one example that did not boil down to this. Now, whenever I reject the use of force, liberals will always (falsely) ASSUME that means my goal is different than theirs, because the idea of voluntarism is just so bizarre and foreign they figure if you have a goal you MUST try to use violence and force to achieve it, and if you don't, then that means it's not your goal.

For example, I strongly advocate charity, and I want to promote policies that encourage as much charity as possible. Well what is charity? Is it not a redistribution of wealth from those who have more to provide services to those who have less? Is not the goal of charity to create more equality, and to help the poor? What about progressive taxation? Does it not have the exact same goal, the same function, and the same outcome, with the sole difference between them is that charity accomplishes it voluntarily, whereas progressive taxation is enforced with threats of violence (ie an IRS agent will arrest you at gunpoint if you don't comply)? Now when I talk about why I prefer charity over force, liberals will constantly accuse me of not wanting equality, of wanting to let the poor die. But that's a red herring. We BOTH want the same thing. The only thing that divides us is the one sole defining characteristic of libertarians: not forcing people to do things against their will.

But when I present studies showing that a charity actually does a BETTER job of transferring MORE wealth and providing SUPERIOR assistance to the poor, liberals, in my experience, always reject this solution purely because it does NOT use force. I've yet to see a liberal ever take up the debate and argue that taxation does a better job than charity. They merely dismiss charity because the use of force is the natural human instinct. When you see one guy who has so much, and another who has so little, the instinct is to grab a club and take from the former and give to the latter. The idea that we need to find a way to incentivize the former to give to the latter voluntarily is much more complex and less intuitive.

This happened during a Ron Paul debate when asked about medical care he said he preferred the system we had in the US before the government took over, where poor people went to charity hospitals. He was attacked for being callous towards the plight of the poor and wanting to deny them access to life-saving medical care.

But wait.... What was his profession at the time... Oh yeah, a medical doctor working for $3/hour in a charity hospital providing free medical care to the poor. What right do all these liberals have to condemn him for being callous, when they've never lifted a finger to provide medical care to the poor? All they do is sit back and order the police to take money from “A” at gunpoint and use it to give “B” medical care. Ron Paul's point was that the old system, based on charity, worked BETTER. Back then, every town had charity hospitals to care for the poor people, which were funded by the rich. A poor person walked in, a doctor gave him the best care he could, and sent him home with a pat on the back and the man got on with his life. But then liberals said it was demeaning for a poor person to go to a charity hospital (NOTE: their argument wasn't that there weren't enough charity hospitals or the care was inadequate, it's that health care was a RIGHT and poor people shouldn't depend on charity to get it). So they made it law that ALL doctors must provide basic care regardless of the patients' ability to pay. Obviously, this was the end of the charity hospital. They no longer had any purpose when, effectively, the government turned EVERY hospital into a charity hospital against their will. So now we have a system where a poor person goes to whatever hospital he wants and demands care. Doctors begrudgingly give him the minimum care to keep from getting sued. But then they send him home with a bill that is often 10x higher than what wealthier people with insurance would have paid. When the poor person can't pay, they turn it to collection, garnish his wages, until he files bankruptcy. And now, thanks to this liberal system, the largest cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.

So it's NOT that we disagree on the goal. We BOTH want poor people to get medical care, and we BOTH want rich people to pay for it. The difference is liberals go with the first knee-jerk reaction to just order all doctors to give free care at gunpoint, whereas libertarians try to find ways to encourage the same result, but through a voluntary mechanism.

Quote:The one girl has better chances because she is prettier, that is true. But should we allow her to take all for herself and leave nothing for the rest?

First, I'm not suggesting she “take” anything. That's stealing. I'm saying that if people voluntarily give her “stuff”, who are YOU to do the taking? And how are you going to take it? Will you encourage her to share? Or will you take it at gunpoint? The common liberal argument is that this is democracy, whoever gets 51% of the vote has all the power and decides what gets taken at gunpoint, and that it's not “violence” if it's done through this democratic process. This means if you're walking down the street and a man pulls a gun and orders you to hand over your watch, it's stealing. But if two people are walking down the street and say “let's take a vote on whether you have to give us your watch”, that's democracy. See libertarians tend to believe all people are equal. You don't get special power just for belonging to a group. Even if you're part of a 99% majority, you shouldn't be able to do the 1% anything they cannot do to you.

Quote:You said something else: You do not agree with ron Paul's ideals, but you thik just because he doesn't use violence he deserves your vote? If I could choose between a violent man who shares my ideals and a peaceful man whom I completely disagree with, I would choose neither and fight for a third option, not create a society which I do not want simply because no violence is used.

Obviously if there WAS a third choice who had a chance of winning and disavowed the use of violence AND shared my values, I would never even consider voting for Ron Paul. In fact, I much preferred Gary Johnson to Ron Paul, and would have preferred someone more liberal still. The only reason I backed Ron Paul was that he actually had a chance of winning. Many opinion polls asking voters to pick between Ron Paul vs. Obama, put them neck and neck.

Quote:I don't know if this applies to you, but a lot of people seem to confuse socialism (and anarcho-socialism) with communism. Communism is, like Chomsky said, a fake socialism.

Again, I think this is confusing the “official” definition with the actual implementation. Socialism is a ban on private ownership of the means of production (ie no private property in the factory). It is a stepping stone to communism which is a ban on ALL private ownership of ANY property. The original communist philosophers were much more aligned with modern libertarians, and the only disagreement was on private property. And to this day, I have no problem with socialism or communism—if they're done voluntarily. I would be happy to see a 51st state in the US that was communist, and I would wish them the best, and may even join them if it works out well. I think we'd be much better off if we had a variety of different systems at the state level, all competing to give everyone the longest, healthiest, happiest life. Then let everyone decide which state they want to live in.

Yugoslavia, for example, was the one communist country that did not ban emigration. The people stayed because they wanted to stay. Thus the people who did stay were more committed to it and it worked better.

Communism in itself has nothing to do with being an authoritarian state. Instead, communism as we've seen it implemented is always done through an authoritarian state. You say “Communism directly shatters both liberty and equality”, but I disagree. Places like the Soviet Union simply didn't implement it the way early communist philosophers wanted. On the other hand, look at a Jewish Kibbutz, or the old German Raffheisen. Those were effectively communist system and they worked very well—because participation was voluntary.

You say “While socialism in its true form has no (centralised) state and thus does not and cannot impose its will on citizens.” Look up the definition of socialism. Where does it define it as a lack of a centralized state? This isn't true. Look at the list of self-described socialist countries today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_soc..._countries Like Cuba, Laos, etc. They are all pretty oppressive, authoritarian places.

Look at the places that have the most freedom. None of them are socialist. You may say “Sweden”, but this is just wrong. From: http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752: "Sweden has always been a solid market economy", states the present right-wing government on its website. And that is certainly true. Sweden has never been a socialist society - based on public ownership of production, workers’ control and management, social equality and a democratic plan of production. Neither has Sweden been a ‘mixed economy’ or provided a ‘third way’ - an alternative to both capitalism and socialism, if such a thing were possible.

So we're debating semantics because I'm using socialism and communism as they were originally defined in the encyclopedia, and you're referring to them in the more informal way they're often used.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
15-11-2013, 09:05 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
I always like to ask libertarians - or their fascist hangers-on - what their model is. Where have their ideas been tried and what is the success of them.

You'd be surprised at the lack of answers.

Libertarianism always reminds me of this joke.

Katz' kosher butcher in NY City.

Mrs. Schwartz enters and says to Katz: "How much for you kosher chickens?"

Katz replies amicably: 89 cents a pound,

Mrs. Schwartz snorts and says: "Mr Goldstein is selling them for 59 cents a pound."

Still amicable, Katz replies, "So. Go buy from Goldstein."

Mrs. Schwarts says: "He doesn't have any."

Katz nods and says "if I didn't have any...I could sell them for 59 cents a pound, too."

That's libertarianism. Not much in the way of substance but great P.R.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
15-11-2013, 09:30 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(15-11-2013 09:05 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  I always like to ask libertarians - or their fascist hangers-on - what their model is. Where have their ideas been tried and what is the success of them.

You'd be surprised at the lack of answers.

The only reason you say that is because every time a libertarian answers that question you cover your ears and shout "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", because then you can go home and pretend like libertarianism has never been tried.

Every time I've ever heard that question asked, every libertarian answers "Hong Kong". It was an experiment in pure libertarianism, with an official government policy of positive non-interventionism; actively not intervening. In one generation of practicing libertarianism, Hong Kong went from having a fraction of the per capital income in the US, to having HIGHER per capita income. It got into the top 3 in terms of life expectancy. It was the #1 spot in terms of low rate of violent crime, with virtually no homicides; unheard of for such a large city. It became the #1 trading hub in the world, with the world's busiest harbor, the most commercial air traffic. And so many people flocked to it that it became the most densely populated place as well.

Next example: Switzerland. They're the only country that throughout the 20th century kept the gold standard, did not criminalize the refusal to pay taxes (nobody goes to jail for tax evasion), and they kept all the power at the local level. For example, they have no welfare program at either the Federal or State level; it's left up to the local towns and charities. Yet with this libertarian policy they have eliminated poverty, being the ONLY country where the poorest 20% make at least half the median income. Because of their pro-business climate, the lowest paid laborer, say the janitor at McDonald's easily makes $40k/year, gets a months vacation and health care. All without any minimum wage. They became the country with the highest household savings (the average Swiss family having $700,000 in savings). And in many opinion polls the Swiss have reported the highest satisfaction with their government. Not to mention very high life expectancy and low crime.

Next example: Chile. Here, like in so many places, the US supported the overthrow of a democracy and propped up a repressive dictator. But, he sent his economic planners to study under the most famous libertarian, Milton Friedman, and agreed to allow them to implement a free-market system based on Friedman's teachings. The most telling thing is that Friedman accurately predicted that social freedom and economic freedom are really closely related, and that by giving people economic freedom, they would have to give them social freedom too. And that happened. The dictatorship soon came crashing down, now they have a peaceful democracy, and they are the only Latin American country in the OECD, they have the most stable economy, the highest income and highest standard of living of any Latin American country. Again, all in one generation--since, before adopting libertarianism, they were near the bottom.

Last case... Look at, for example, the economic freedom index, which measures how much force/coercion government introduces into the economy. They rank country from 0% free to 100% free. The highest historically is, of course, Hong Kong, rated at 99.6% free (ie 99.6% libertarian). But put all the countries on a chart based on their ranking of libertarianness on one axis, and put some other quality of life on the other. I've seen this done with things like life expectancy, rate of violent crime, per capital income, infant mortality, etc. In every case I've seen, it's diagonal line where the closest the country is to the libertarian ideal, the longer, healthier, happier, and more prosperous the people are. You never see a 'bell curve' where things get better to a point, and then start to drop as a country becomes "too libertarian". Liberals well say "Well Hong Kong only gets a 99.6% rating, so it's not 100% libertarian, and therefore, libertarianism doesn't work, so instead of trying to be more like those countries where people live long, healthy, happy lives, we want to go in the other direction, to the countries that are 0% libertarian, like North Korea, where people die young, destitute and miserable." I've often laughed at this logic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
16-11-2013, 03:44 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
So, I guess you don't much like me...oh, well. It wouldn't be the first time.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 08:02 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(15-11-2013 09:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 09:05 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  I always like to ask libertarians - or their fascist hangers-on - what their model is. Where have their ideas been tried and what is the success of them.

You'd be surprised at the lack of answers.

The only reason you say that is because every time a libertarian answers that question you cover your ears and shout "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", because then you can go home and pretend like libertarianism has never been tried.

That's quite an assumption. An unwarranted one, lacking evidence. You should try to avoid doing that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-11-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 09:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The only reason you say that is because every time a libertarian answers that question you cover your ears and shout "I'm not listening, I'm not listening", because then you can go home and pretend like libertarianism has never been tried.

That's quite an assumption. An unwarranted one, lacking evidence. You should try to avoid doing that.

Considering that every libertarian I've known would without hesitation answer Minimalist's question, and yet Minimalist insists he asks the question over and over again and can't find any libertarian who will answer it, something doesn't add up. And I've seen this happen first hand, where people ask me this same question, I answer it, just like I did, and then shortly thereafter they still insist that no libertarian will answer it. Thus, I have seen firsthand that this it IS a common MO of libertarian-haters to ask just what Minimalist did, and then cover their ears when libertarians respond, and then respond that libertarians can't answer the question.

Anyway, we'll see how Minimalist responds and what his future posts are. If he ignores my reply, but continues to say that when he asks libertarians where their model has been tried, they refuse to answer, then my assumption will have proven valid and will show that I understand Minimalist's mindset so well that I can predict his responses. If Minimalist acknowledges my response and either disputes the facts in a productive debate, or accepts them, then I will apologize to Minimalist for falsely assuming that he was the same as so many other liberals I've debated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
@NL Atheist,

Can I ask you 2 basic questions:

1. Of all the GOP candidates, why do you single out Ron Paul as being offensive, as opposed to say, Rick Santorum?

Note that I compared the positions of the two here post #65, in response to: "how does libertarianism think of mass media"

2. While your world view is likely the opposite of Ron Paul's in so many ways, as is mine, if you set that aside and look solely at the policies he advocated, can you name any of his policy positions where the difference between your policy and his was not a matter of him wanting to let people exercise their free will vs. you wanting to use physical force to coerce people into doing things against their will?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: