I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 08:26 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 08:31 PM by frankksj.)
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
P.S. Carlo, what you forgot to mention is that Bill Maher has excluded Ron Paul from the list of whacko libertarians, and has said before he'd vote for him, and has had him on his show and been very complimentary of him, saying stuff like: "If America was a smarter country Ron Paul would be leading in the polls". He's "not a panderer... sincere.... I like Ron Paul. I think he's cut from a different cloth than the rest of those people who are selling their souls to the corporate interests that are backing them."

I'm not crazy about Ron Paul because he's a conservative Christian, but he does follow the classic liberal view on most things. And I can't stand Ayn Rand, and would never read Atlas Shrugged. Here is Ron Paul on Bill Maher's show, getting a standing ovation from an entirely liberal audience.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Paul is probably the only honest politician left in the US and I understand the guy's appeal. I'd vote for him if he was nominated on the GOP ticket.

The left and libertarians love him because he is so outspoken on American foreign policy, specifically his opposition to the Iraq war.

I'm also a fan of John Stossel's brand of libertarianism; Government is needed for some basic functions of keeping the peace and ensuring a framework in which liberty and society can flourish (exact definitions can be flexible and changeable to meet the needs of a society and the era). But beyond that stay out of people's lives.




"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
05-12-2013, 07:15 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(04-12-2013 09:10 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Paul is probably the only honest politician left in the US and I understand the guy's appeal. I'd vote for him if he was nominated on the GOP ticket.

The left and libertarians love him because he is so outspoken on American foreign policy, specifically his opposition to the Iraq war.

I'm also a fan of John Stossel's brand of libertarianism; Government is needed for some basic functions of keeping the peace and ensuring a framework in which liberty and society can flourish (exact definitions can be flexible and changeable to meet the needs of a society and the era). But beyond that stay out of people's lives.




This is a very different me writing from when I started this thread, thanks to all the discussion.

I appreciate very much the emphasis Ron Paul puts on personal liberty. But I find his ideas of free market economy very bad. Also, he is a very religious pro-life christian who does not believe in evolution and the separation of church and state. He is also somewhat of a hypocrite in that he wanted a website with his name that was already taken. Instead of doing the free-market thing of buying the domain, he went to the UN, the very institution he ultimately wants to get rid of/give less power.

He gets the libertarian part right, but I believe in a more left libertarianism, specifically anarcho-socialism.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 08:58 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(05-12-2013 07:15 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  I appreciate very much the emphasis Ron Paul puts on personal liberty. But I find his ideas of free market economy very bad. Also, he is a very religious pro-life christian who does not believe in evolution and the separation of church and state.

That's not true about the separation of church. In fact he's the only religious politician who I know who DOES insist on a complete and total separation. Also, it's true he's pro-life, BUT, he was also the ONLY gop candidate that said he would veto a law to ban abortion, because it's a moral decision and best left up to the local communities to decide. He was also a doctor (gynecologist) and said that even though he believes life starts at conception, when a rape victim came in he'd recommend a shot to terminate any unwanted pregnancy.

As far as his free market ideas, he has his OPINIONS, which you may or may not disagree with, but what made him different was he was the only politician who recognized that everybody had their own opinions and he'd have no right to force his opinions on others. He said we should follow the constitution, and let the states have whatever system they want. A state could even be communist, could have socialized medicine, etc. This is very different from the other candidates who insisted on one national agenda enforced at gunpoint.

I was a Ron Paul supporter not because I agreed with his opinions (I didn't), but because he refused to force his opinions on others. I'd much rather have a humble leader who is completely off-base in his opinions but respects individual liberty, than a politician who shares my opinions on everything and forces everyone to follow them.

(05-12-2013 07:15 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  He is also somewhat of a hypocrite in that he wanted a website with his name that was already taken. Instead of doing the free-market thing of buying the domain, he went to the UN, the very institution he ultimately wants to get rid of/give less power.

I agree completely. This was hypocritical, and frankly stupid. He was very far from my ideal candidate as well. But he was the only viable candidate who vowed to respect individual liberty and not use threats of violence to coerce people into doing things against their will. I liked Gary Johnson much better. But he could never more than a couple percent of voters. Ron Paul, in national opinion polls, did better against Obama than Romney. And, imo, Romney was such a weak candidate he would have won the GOP nomination if the GOP hadn't effectively banned him (see post #6).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 06:43 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(05-12-2013 08:58 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 07:15 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  I appreciate very much the emphasis Ron Paul puts on personal liberty. But I find his ideas of free market economy very bad. Also, he is a very religious pro-life christian who does not believe in evolution and the separation of church and state.

That's not true about the separation of church. In fact he's the only religious politician who I know who DOES insist on a complete and total separation. Also, it's true he's pro-life, BUT, he was also the ONLY gop candidate that said he would veto a law to ban abortion, because it's a moral decision and best left up to the local communities to decide. He was also a doctor (gynecologist) and said that even though he believes life starts at conception, when a rape victim came in he'd recommend a shot to terminate any unwanted pregnancy.

As far as his free market ideas, he has his OPINIONS, which you may or may not disagree with, but what made him different was he was the only politician who recognized that everybody had their own opinions and he'd have no right to force his opinions on others. He said we should follow the constitution, and let the states have whatever system they want. A state could even be communist, could have socialized medicine, etc. This is very different from the other candidates who insisted on one national agenda enforced at gunpoint.

I was a Ron Paul supporter not because I agreed with his opinions (I didn't), but because he refused to force his opinions on others. I'd much rather have a humble leader who is completely off-base in his opinions but respects individual liberty, than a politician who shares my opinions on everything and forces everyone to follow them.

(05-12-2013 07:15 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  He is also somewhat of a hypocrite in that he wanted a website with his name that was already taken. Instead of doing the free-market thing of buying the domain, he went to the UN, the very institution he ultimately wants to get rid of/give less power.

I agree completely. This was hypocritical, and frankly stupid. He was very far from my ideal candidate as well. But he was the only viable candidate who vowed to respect individual liberty and not use threats of violence to coerce people into doing things against their will. I liked Gary Johnson much better. But he could never more than a couple percent of voters. Ron Paul, in national opinion polls, did better against Obama than Romney. And, imo, Romney was such a weak candidate he would have won the GOP nomination if the GOP hadn't effectively banned him (see post #6).

I'm not very big on any politician, American or Dutch. I do not agree with our current system, and hence I believe that a "lesser of two evils"-mindset is not very good. I understand the position though and I can respect it. I don't think I will vote next dutch election. Not sure about European elections though.

I do agree with you that Ron Paul values individual liberty very much, which is great. There's a bunch of points I agree on with him, ending the wars etc. But in the end he is, like a lot of libertarians in America, a free market enthusiast and I know he would never collectivise means of production. I don't think I would vote for him if I were an American.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(06-12-2013 06:43 AM)NL Atheist Wrote:  But in the end he is, like a lot of libertarians in America, a free market enthusiast and I know he would never collectivise means of production. I don't think I would vote for him if I were an American.

Actually, if you believe in collectivising the means of production, he is the ONLY candidate who would let you do it. Sure, he is opposed to imposing it with force at the national level, so that everybody is forced to do it against their will. But, he's the only candidate who says the states can do what they want. If they want to be socialist, or communist, that's their business, so long as they don't violate the basic human right of freedom of movement. That way, the people who are opposed to socialism can leave and relocate to another state, and those who like it can relocate to it. And thus you have a social contract where people voluntarily subject themselves to one particular set of laws in exchange for the services the government offers.

So, yes, Ron Paul is very pro free-market. But he's the only candidate who says 'My opinion is just my opinion. You're entitled to your own opinion, and I won't force my opinion on you'. Every non-libertarian candidates says "I know exactly how the country should run, and I'm going to force the whole country to do it my way, and imprison anybody who resists." And since none of the candidates were in favor of collectivising the means of production, Ron Paul is actually the ONLY choice you would have if you were American.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Can somebody educate me on the free-market economy that Ron Paul is in favor of?

Wouldn't a free-market economy stop the government from being able to pass any sort of legislation regarding the economy? Would trusts and sorts of monopolies be prevalent if this were to be the case?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 01:42 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(08-12-2013 11:41 AM)Fat Mac Wrote:  Can somebody educate me on the free-market economy that Ron Paul is in favor of? Wouldn't a free-market economy stop the government from being able to pass any sort of legislation regarding the economy?

He believes that all transactions should be entered into voluntarily because both sides feel it's a win-win. However, he accepts that the majority of the public insists on using force to regulate the economy. So the only thing he pushes for is that we follow the rule of law, the constitution, which explicitly states that all such regulation must be done at the state/local level. This way there's some checks and balances if regulation gets out of hand, people can move. I've heard him say the states can do what they want, including socialism. As long as people can choose what system they want to live under, you have a valid social contract.

(08-12-2013 11:41 AM)Fat Mac Wrote:  Would trusts and sorts of monopolies be prevalent if this were to be the case?

This is a valid concern. However, how many monopolies, besides DeBeers, can you think of that formed WITHOUT government help? Friedman once compared the thousands of monopolies and concluded only DeBeers was a 'natural monopoly' without government privilege, and thus by removing government regulation you would eliminate nearly all the monopolies. You can read the Wikipedia article on 'monopoly' for more on this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 09:04 AM
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.

When you call Libertarians "fascist," or make the implication that they are, you are no better than Bill O'Reilly calling David Silverman a fascist. You are only advertising a personal hatred that you can't even define correctly.

This is the signature.

http://www.FromNothingGameStudios.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 09:19 AM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(04-12-2013 05:51 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 02:58 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  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.

In a nutshell, no one defines (or at least none of these people) define libertarianism correctly. In its purest form, libertarianism sets the maximizing of personal liberty to be the highest social goal.

Please note: Ron Paul is not really a libertarian; he's more of a social conservative who opposes US foreign policy and likes laissez faire capitalism.

Bill Maher did a pretty good rant on modern libertarians on his show.



They do have an undying love for capitalism and casually ignore where government helps or benefits us all with public investments.

As a libertarian, I do not ignore where government helps or benefits--but I recognize where government goes too far in this regard to being a constant intrusion, so to speak. Government is better at doing things badly than doing things well. How many people are on welfare that truly need it as opposed to the number who simply want a free ride? I grew up in a very impoverished farming community, and a great many were on welfare--and sadly, had better and newer cars than my working class parents. This is a failure of government "help." An anecdote, to be sure, but a problem none-the-less.

The point of libertarianism has always been no different than atheism for me--I don't need god or government to tell me how to live my life. I can be a good person without either. When we assume we need massive government, we assume the worst in people. The larger the government, the weaker the people.

I don't advocate a complete removal of all government, rather like John Stossel, but we desperately need to scale it back. When the government is recording information on things as petty as World of Warcraft players, its beyond intrusive--and grown massively out of control.

Now, Bill Maher is interesting as an atheist, especially since he is a pseudo-scientific anti-vaxxer, and when I've heard him talk about things such as the "cruel hunting of deer," I can't help but note how removed he is from reality. I live in Minnesota. We have well over a million deer here. Hunting is extremely important for a variety of reasons--the two most important parts of that being that if the number of deer isn't controlled, deer die in higher numbers as they starve to death over our pleasant northern winters, and they become incredible hazards to drivers.

I like Bill Maher's atheism--pretty much everything else about him is a little harder to swallow.

This is the signature.

http://www.FromNothingGameStudios.com
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Skeptic Gamer's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: