I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(15-11-2013 02:58 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  What then is liberty? Liberty means, as I have just stated, equality.

I hope you are ready to give up whatever it is about you that you cherish to make someone with less feel "equal". Then you'll really feel "free".

I also hope you have a product or a service that you offer to the economy that you're completely willing to sell or trade at the value determined by the least of the people who want it.

Me? I'll take freedom. But then again, some people think I'm really well off so what do I know?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Regular_Joe's post
16-11-2013, 10:05 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 09:21 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 08:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

It would be more productive if you just didn't do it.

"...as so many other liberals I've debated." And that, too.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-11-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 09:29 AM)frankksj Wrote:  @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?


First of all, you have completely missed what I'm about. If you'd have read my second post you would have seen that I am against state-run capitalism and therefore against coerced taxation.

Now for the first point, I did state that my post was somewhat of a rant (at least in the beginning). I dislike Ron Paul because of his 4chan-like dult following that will just ignore his bad ideas and policies because he says he stands for freedom and wants to end the wars.






I think in general it has been assumed in this thread that because I am against the Ron Paul/American kind of libertarianism, meaning free market capitalism (and I DO NOT want to strawman all libertarians in America with this), I am therefore a liberal. I am not, in any way a liberal, as I have actually stated already. I guess I would call myself an anarcho-collectivist, which is a branch of libertarianism in regards to the older meaning of the word. I believe that nobody should be coerced into giving a lot of their posessions away. What I mean when I say freedom requires liberty is: People should be able to have more based on their contribution and labour, but they should not be able to use their material superiority to oppress others in societal or political context, which happens in both free market capitalism and in our current form of capitalism.

I am against an authoritarian state in general, which is why I disagree with communism, but the reason I prefer anarcho-collectivism with worker self-management over a free market is because material inequality in the latter system impairs the freedom of others through social hierarchy (not only in societal context, but also in the context of a business run from the top down).

I know that I am not the best writer and I cannot always present my points in a very clear way, but I hope this has cleared some things up. Thank you all for responding, this is very interesting.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
[Image: Mayday%20wants%20more%20government.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like BryanS's post
16-11-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 10:38 AM)BryanS Wrote:  [Image: Mayday%20wants%20more%20government.jpg]

Eh. Cute and all, but "government" is not a quantized abstract existing on a simplistic and reductive one-dimensional spectrum running from "more" to "less".

But I did smirk for a about half a second, so there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
16-11-2013, 11:44 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 11:52 AM by frankksj.)
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
@NL Athiest,

Understood that you don't like me lumping yourself in with liberals, and that you self-identify as anarcho-socialist (aka libertarian socialism). But, imho, your views are the exact opposite.

All libertarians, whether Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky, share one thing in common: we reject the use of force to coerce people into doing things against their will. Liberals and conservatives, however, argue that, if they get in power, they will have to use coercion, but, they say "trust us, it won't be a lot, we'll only use coercion when it's reasonable and warranted {wink, wink}". Libertarians reject this because history has shown that once whoever is in power is allowed to use violence and coercion, even if they start with the best intentions, it will always creep and lead to tyranny.

Now you said: "I believe that nobody should be coerced into giving a lot of their posessions away." So you ARE advocating the use of coercion, and thus cannot be libertarian, and your position seems to me to be identical to liberals and conservatives, which is a "trust me, it won't be a lot".

The other thing that, imo, you misunderstand is the divide between the camps of libertarians, and what Noam Chomsky actually says. Both sides agree in liberty and free will. That's a given, as it's the very meaning of libertarianism. But we disagree on whether humans should be allowed to own property, and divide into 2 camps, those that do, like myself and Ron Paul, and those that do not, namely communists/socialists, like Noam Chomsky. I don't obsess over the divide, nor do I try to refute the non-propertarian libertarians like Chomsky because we both agree not to use force to make the other side do it our way. We both agree to disagree, and peacefully live side by side. This is radically different from liberals or conservatives who fight to the death to get in power so that they can violently force everyone to live the way they want them to, with no means of escape.

See you misquoted Chomsky. He did NOT say "communism is a fake socialism", implying communism is not the same as socialism. He said the opposite, that the Soviet's implementation of communism was fake socialism, meaning that communism IS simply the final stage in socialism, it's just that the Soviet's did it wrong and weren't real communists/socialists.

Chomsky IS a communist/socialist in the classic sense (not the modern misuse, calling Sweden "socialist"). He really does oppose private ownership of property, particularly when it's used to produce something. Chomsky accurately points out classic communists/socialists actually ARE libertarians, in that the goal has been to reduce coercion and let people exercise free will.

Classic communists felt that abolishing private property would be a better way to reach that goal. But the modern so-called "communists", like the Soviet Union, forgot the goal of libertarianism/communism (the reduction of coercion) and instead went the opposite way, creating a horribly oppressive, centrally managed authoritarian state.

So, while you identify as anarcho-capitalist/social libertarian, it seems to me that the positions you espouse, like the use of coercion to take people's possessions as long as it's not "a lot" are the opposite, because you DO believe in the use of coercion, and you DO believe in private property (ie you say "take people's possessions" whereas as libertarian socialist says "they're not your possessions in the first place"). So you seem to me to be more aligned with liberals and conservatives. Can you clarify?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
16-11-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
When I said "a lot" I made a mistake. I meant that i do not agree with taking people's possessions, and I used "a lot" because that is what's being done right now.
In this thread I've learnt a bit about libertarianism, and trust me, I'm still learning a lot about it.

but libertarianism, as you said, is to take away the coercion. Communism does not fall under that, does it? The state has all the power, the state owns everythibng, the state decides what everyone gets and doesn't get. Maybe I have misinterpreted communism, but as far as I know, communists wanted to achieve a classless society through a communist state, but I can't say whether or not they intended to keep this state around.

To clarify: I DO NOT agree with coercion, this has been a misunderstanding. And of course property exists in some sense in a libertarian society. The means of production are collective, but everyone has a house, furniture, maybe a car and of course their supplies. I just don't believe in private property when it comes to means of production etc.

As I said, I'm still learning, and I'd like to thank you again for discussing this with me, it's really helping me a lot.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Came here expecting dogma and shit-fights.

Found some reasonably revealing and civilised discussion.

Nice.


(15-11-2013 09:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...
They rank country from 0% free to 100% free. The highest historically is, of course, Hong Kong...

HK ain't a country. Just thought I'd mention that.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
16-11-2013, 01:32 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 01:14 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Came here expecting dogma and shit-fights.

Found some reasonably revealing and civilised discussion.

Nice.

Well I try my best, despite my relative ignorance on the matter...

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 01:14 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Came here expecting dogma and shit-fights.

Found some reasonably revealing and civilised discussion.

Nice.


(15-11-2013 09:30 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...
They rank country from 0% free to 100% free. The highest historically is, of course, Hong Kong...

HK ain't a country. Just thought I'd mention that.

I agree. I like civil discussion cause it's, well civil.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” - Churchill

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: