Some fun facts on Ron Paul

[scspkr99]

Yeah I assumed that was the case but not every joint has a window into the kitchen and lax food hygene can kill.

As for opting out of medicare or social security can I opt out of defence spending?

[Genevieve]

Nah because opening a business is a privilige that's granted to the proprietor, with that privilige the authority granting it can grant that conditionally, those conditions may include a notice that outlaws discrimination against customers based on whatever the granting authority decides.

Yes but my argument is that it infringes on liberty. Regardless of what the government's position is on this (I don't get my rights from the government, no matter how much they want to impose them on me). But let's say we live in a world with no government and I decide to... sell pizza from my home. Where does someone else get the right to impose their rules on my establishment?

Now given that a libertarian social structure is unlikely to have the same conditions I would be interested in whether food hygene should be a condition in food outlets or whether customers should be free to decide? Should there be any legislation around health and safety (I assume not but I defer to you if I'm wrong). The are many conditions under which a business operates not discriminating is merely another.

As libertarians are in favour of rolling back the government I don't know where the incentives are for business to operate to the standards we expect, I guess the argument is to leave it to the market to decide the level of protection a business transaction should be afforded.

Would you dine at a place with subpar hygiene?

I totally understand why you would be critical of no government supplying regulations on health and safety, but 400 years ago, an argument against freeing the slaves was 'who would pick the cotton?' If you got rid of the government, people wouldn't suddenly settle for bad hygiene and hair in their soup. The incentive would be profits, if you place stinks, the service is lousy and so on, who would bother to eat there? No one obviously, but if you want to check on the kitchen, why not do it yourself? And if they refuse to let you have a look, stop dining there? Or why can't a private organization decide which place is safe and which place isn't?

Then if someone has rat poison in their food, why not sue them? No government can prevent that from happening either, but if you get harmed by their service, they've innitated force on you and have breached your rights and you would be well within your rights to sue them for it. My parents used to own a restaurant and we only got checked once, actually. And it was perfectly clean and sanitary. Our competitors, who we know got checked more regularly, were a lot more dirty (infact the guy who inspected our kitchen told that to my father). Now I'm not saying, the absence of those regular check-ups made my paretn's restaurant more sanitary, but it does prove that regulation doesn't necessarily improve anything.

But yeah, I would leave it in the hands of a private company. Their incentive would be profit as well, or charity.

[Genevieve]

As for opting out of medicare or social security can I opt out of defence spending?

When you opt out of medicare you won't pay into it and not receive it and it's unconstitutional. You can't opt out of defense because the federal government is legally required to provide defense to you. It sucks and I know Paul agrees that it sucks too (not that it makes a difference), but the problem is that you can't legally secede from the American government (though you should have the right to).

[deadly_habit]

well yea, but honestly as is how often do restaurants get food inspections, or only change due to being fined and then go back to their old habits? the market should regulate this, not the government. would it really be so demanding of a restaurant to have windows to their kitchen, or a bad idea from the businesses stand point?
re: defense spending: that's also an issue paul has brought up, especially about shutting down bases overseas (there's a reason out of all candidates he has the most donations from active duty military)


i love his stance on this and it sums up that people have common sense and don't need the government telling them everything

[magma]

One adult never does. The majority always does. That's how democracy works, chum.

By that logic, it's fine to democratically vote to outlaw homosexual behavior.

If the majority voted it in, sure. It used to be outlawed because the majority opinion was that it was evil. The fight was to change majority opinion, not to enforce the sainted morality of the minority on them.

Not a very strong argument.

And why can the majority impose their will on the minority on things that don't affect them?

That's how democracy works. If you believe a law is unjust, you campaign, get popular support and change it. I don't agree with marijuana legislation, but I realise majority opinion needs to change in order to force the issue, so I involve myself with campaigning rather than looking for ways to opt-out of the society that gives me so much... is having one or two grumbles enough to make people turn their back on their fellow man? They're not very good men if it is.

This cult of the individual is short sighted - naked human greed is natural, but not healthy. It's society that matters. Make society a healthy framework for human life and more individuals will have better lives. It's really basic stuff. I'd rather 300 million were happy than 3 million. Why is that difficult to understand?

[Genevieve]

i love his stance on this and it sums up that people have common sense and don't need the government telling them everything

Pretty much. People think that they are the only ones with "common sense" and if people would listen to them, the world would be a better place. It's not a criticism, it's human nature to deep down inside think that "you're" the moral compas of society that the rest of humanity should strive to. But if you ask most people, by far, if cheating on your loved ones, fraud, being deceitful, violent or hell, even doing dangerous drugs like heroin is good for you is a good idea, you'll see that by far, most people will agree with you. So if "you" can stay away from heroin without the government, why should it be different for anybody else?

[deadly_habit]

One adult never does. The majority always does. That's how democracy works, chum.

By that logic, it's fine to democratically vote to outlaw homosexual behavior.

If the majority voted it in, sure. It used to be outlawed because the majority opinion was that it was evil. The fight was to change majority opinion, not to enforce the sainted morality of the minority on them.

Not a very strong argument.

And why can the majority impose their will on the minority on things that don't affect them?

That's how democracy works. If you believe a law is unjust, you campaign, get popular support and change it. I don't agree with marijuana legislation, but I realise majority opinion needs to change in order to force the issue, so I involve myself with campaigning rather than looking for ways to opt-out of the society that gives me so much... is having one or two grumbles enough to make people turn their back on their fellow man? They're not very good men if it is.

This cult of the individual is short sighted - naked human greed is natural, but not healthy. It's society that matters. Make society a healthy framework for human life and more individuals will have better lives. It's really basic stuff. I'd rather 300 million were happy than 3 million. Why is that difficult to understand?

well state law vs federal law is definitely a big issue in the country that needs to be addressed, as that semi falls under individual rights
like the raids on the marijuana dispensaries in california by the federal government

[deadly_habit]

i love his stance on this and it sums up that people have common sense and don't need the government telling them everything

Pretty much. People think that they are the only ones with "common sense" and if people would listen to them, the world would be a better place. It's not a criticism, it's human nature to deep down inside think that "you're" the moral compas of society that the rest of humanity should strive to. But if you ask most people, by far, if cheating on your loved ones, fraud, being deceitful, violent or hell, even doing dangerous drugs like heroin is good for you is a good idea, you'll see that by far, most people will agree with you. So if "you" can stay away from heroin without the government, why should it be different for anybody else?

well that and if you want something bad enough be it moral or immoral, or legal or illegal when it comes to your personal lifestyle, they're going to do it regardless (drugs and the laws regarding them being a big one, especially when you look at the incarceration rate of non violent offenses, such as possession)

[Genevieve]

One adult never does. The majority always does. That's how democracy works, chum.

By that logic, it's fine to democratically vote to outlaw homosexual behavior.

If the majority voted it in, sure. It used to be outlawed because the majority opinion was that it was evil. The fight was to change majority opinion, not to enforce the sainted morality of the minority on them.

Not a very strong argument.

And why can the majority impose their will on the minority on things that don't affect them?

That's how democracy works. If you believe a law is unjust, you campaign, get popular support and change it. I don't agree with marijuana legislation, but I realise majority opinion needs to change in order to force the issue, so I involve myself with campaigning rather than looking for ways to opt-out of the society that gives me so much... is having one or two grumbles enough to make people turn their back on their fellow man? They're not very good men if it is.

This cult of the individual is short sighted - naked human greed is natural, but not healthy. It's society that matters. Make society a healthy framework for human life and more individuals will have better lives. It's really basic stuff. I'd rather 300 million were happy than 3 million. Why is that difficult to understand?

Cult of individualism? You're following the cult of democracy as if it's an inherent natural thing. It's a system devised by some people a couple of thousand years ago, why does that automatically mean I have to be apart of it? Where does that authority come from to make up my mind for me?

Democracy is not like.. breathing air. It's not a natural occurence I can disagree with and live. Your adherence to democracy is arbitrarily giving the majority authority. And you keep treating it as an 'inherent thing'. I agree, I live in a country that is a form of democracy so for me to get ahead in this society I have to live by its rules. But that doesn't mean I accept that morality or that I agree with the notion of the majority making decisions for the minority is somehow 'right'. It's definitely not, it's a milder form of slavery (much milder, don't get me wrong). And what's troubling is that some people, including you, just accept this authority as an inherent, natural thing.

[AllNightDayDream]

Haha uhm. No, not 'a competing gold standard'. Competing currencies and let the market decide what they want, whether it's silver, gold or bottle caps. He is personally pro-gold standard, but he wouldn't implement it. And there is nothing wrong with the 'gold standard'. It's not perfect, but no currency is.

In the video you posted, paul advocates a competing gold standard. Gold already acts as a hedge against the dollar. It's easy to say there's nothing wrong with the gold standard until you arrive at a credit crunch such as the great depression or the recent recession, where a dollar hunkered by a commodity can cause catastrophic deflation (as observed in the great depression). Regardless, the original point was that Paul was indeed for the gold standard and there's nothing arrogant about that observation.

Uhh yeah, he blames the government and the central bank.. He's citing Austrian business cycle theory to support his point. Which, yeah, predicted the bubble. You simplify and distort his position into oblivion. It's more complicated than you'd like to think.

I personally don't think the Austrian theory is entirely incorrect, in certain ways it complements modern interpretations of Keynes. But it's main bane is the implication of central bank and government policies influencing the market. Back to the basic antagonism against government holding the market down. Most regulatory failures derive from things that WERE allowed instead of things that WEREN'T allowed, i.e. glass-steagall, adjustable rate mortgages, synthetic CDOs, etc. Plus, there's evidence that the Federal Funds Rate doesn't affect aggregate rates but simply follows them.

Because I'm not talking about American problems, or an American philosophy, but a global problem and a global philosophy. Global =/= American. Just because you're American doesn't mean you know more about Paul's positions and the economic crisis is a global problem. The mortgages were sold internationally.

It was sarcasm. You were using the same argument against me.

[magma]

Cult of individualism? You're following the cult of democracy as if it's an inherent natural thing. It's a system devised by some people a couple of thousand years ago, why does that automatically mean I have to be apart of it? Where does that authority come from to make up my mind for me?

Democracy is not like.. breathing air. It's not a natural occurence I can disagree with and live. Your adherence to democracy is arbitrarily giving the majority authority. And you keep treating it as an 'inherent thing'. I agree, I live in a country that is a form of democracy so for me to get ahead in this society I have to live by its rules. But that doesn't mean I accept that morality or that I agree with the notion of the majority making decisions for the minority is somehow 'right'. It's definitely not, it's a milder form of slavery (much milder, don't get me wrong). And what's troubling is that some people, including you, just accept this authority as an inherent, natural thing.

The word may have been invented millennia ago, but Democracy has really come of age in the last couple of centuries, especially in the Western world.

No, you don't have to agree with it. I'm just glad it exists so that I'm not forced into slavery by a fuedal lord. You should read a bit more pre-democracy history and see if you think allowing the people no voice whatsoever was a better situation for the average individual. It really wasn't.

The closer the world has allowed countries to come to libertarianism, the more the average individual has ended up suffering. Torture in South America, collapsing credit systems in the West, Union murders in Africa... honestly, you can't let people follow individualism to it's logical conclusion - we all act selfishly every day, you have to base the "system" around counterracting that.

I don't think you're evil or anything... I just think you've got too much faith in humans. We're fucking weak, we need boundaries. A cult that supports the will of 100 million over the greed of 100 is a cult I can get on board with. A cult that champions one man's desire over the happiness and survival of 10 million, isn't.

Still, if you find a few tens of millions that agree with you, you're welcome to start your own state somewhere. Others have tried. They did really well on their own.

[Genevieve]

In the video you posted, paul advocates a competing gold standard. Gold already acts as a hedge against the dollar. It's easy to say there's nothing wrong with the gold standard until you arrive at a credit crunch such as the great depression or the recent recession, where a dollar hunkered by a commodity can cause catastrophic deflation (as observed in the great depression). Regardless, the original point was that Paul was indeed for the gold standard and there's nothing arrogant about that observation.

Do you not see the distinction between "I personally favor" and "I'll implement?". He's not going to implement the gold standard, period. He supports it, but he recognizes that abolishing the fed and reinstating a new currency would be disastrous. What he believes in is letting banks, or anyone, offer their own currency and let the people decide what they wanna use. If it's federal reserve notes, fine, if it's other money, fine. It's as easy as that. Here is the actual economic plan he recently released Search for 'competing currencies' and then search for 'gold standard'. He is confident that the market will pick gold, but that's it.

I personally don't think the Austrian theory is entirely incorrect, in certain ways it complements modern interpretations of Keynes. But it's main bane is the implication of central bank and government policies influencing the market. Back to the basic antagonism against government holding the market down. Most regulatory failures derive from things that WERE allowed instead of things that WEREN'T allowed, i.e. glass-steagall, adjustable rate mortgages, synthetic CDOs, etc. Plus, there's evidence that the Federal Funds Rate doesn't affect aggregate rates but simply follows them.

..but congress decided that housing should've been cheaper through monetary policy?

It was sarcasm. You were using the same argument against me.

I wasn't using the same argument against you. I was telling you that you shouldn't tell a Ron Paul supporter what Ron Paul believes. I'm not telling Keynsians what they believe, I'm merely stating that I disagree with them. scspkr99 didn't go on to say that Ron Paul is against civil rights after I showed him sources that state the opposite, so why are essentially doing the same thing? And I mean, I just showed you his economic plan, are you still going to say he advocates implementing a gold standard?

[scspkr99]

I'm going to come back to this but common sense is no reason to do or support anything, it's the laziest justification that exists

[Genevieve]

No, you don't have to agree with it. I'm just glad it exists so that I'm not forced into slavery by a fuedal lord. You should read a bit more pre-democracy history and see if you think allowing the people no voice whatsoever was a better situation for the average individual. It really wasn't.

What are you talking about? I'm saying that people get their voice stolen by the majority in democracy. Given that we live in a statist society, with borders and governments, democracy in any shape or form is a necessary evil. But that doesn't mean that democracy needs to be implemented to diminish our freedoms. Democracy can work without telling people how to live their lives. If people want to be polygamous, for example, shouldn't they have the right to be? And call it marriage? Without the majority imposing their will on it? Why can't democracy be limited to other things? This is ridiculous.

The closer the world has allowed countries to come to libertarianism, the more the average individual has ended up suffering. Torture in South America, collapsing credit systems in the West, Union murders in Africa... honestly, you can't let people follow individualism to it's logical conclusion - we all act selfishly every day, you have to base the "system" around counterracting that.

None of those examples come even close to libertarianism. Please, just admit that you don't understand it and hell, if you're open to it, ask for some links. But those situations were not 'libertarian'. I'm not just saying it because they're examples of bad things happening, but you're using examples where the capital and resources are owned or regulated by a coercive governments.

I don't think you're evil or anything... I just think you've got too much faith in humans. We're fucking weak, we need boundaries. A cult that supports the will of 100 million over the greed of 100 is a cult I can get on board with. A cult that champions one man's desire over the happiness and survival of 10 million, isn't.

No, I do know that people do fucked up things. And for as long as they do it to themselves, they can go ahead. It's thier lives and I'm not God.

Still, if you find a few tens of millions that agree with you, you're welcome to start your own state somewhere. Others have tried. They did really well on their own.[/quote]

None have tried. Iceland was sort of close at one point and America was too (for a very short period in some places), but no one ever tried.

[Genevieve]

I'm going to come back to this but common sense is no reason to do or support anything, it's the laziest justification that exists

That's not what the argument implied. Replace common sense with 'smart enough'. Just because heroin is legal doesn't mean people will do it more. Just like people won't use knives to stab someone just because they're legal either.

[magma]

No, I do know that people do fucked up things. And for as long as they do it to themselves, they can go ahead. It's thier lives and I'm not God.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I just have no faith in people sticking to it in principal... people can do whatever they like to themselves as far as I'm concerned, but society must regulate so that they can't do whatever they like to each other.

Badging yourself as a "Financial Advisor" and selling a destitute family a mortgage they can't afford on a trailer than loses value as soon as they move into it is tantamount to enforced-slavery and SHOULD be made illegal so it won't happen. It should be a crime and should result in lost jobs and jail sentences. It happens enough when it's legal to bring down entire economies. That's not a good enough situation.

I'm not pro-democracy because I'm against individual freedom, but I am reluctantly willing to sacrifice the occasional freedom so that the majority aren't held to ransom by a tiny, powerful majority. It's a compromise, definitely... but we're a society made up of billions of individuals... there HAS to be compromise in order for us all to get along. I'm sure you've made compromises to get along better with your family... making them to get along better with the wider-family (the human race) is no different.

Democracy isn't perfect, granted, but it'll work an awful lot better if we don't disenfranchise huge swaithes of the population by forcing millions of them into lives of pathetic drudgery so that a handful of people can exercise their "right" to make themselves far richer than they could ever require at other's expense.

I'd love to have enough faith in 7 billion individuals to be able to scrap government inteference, it just wouldn't work though. We'd all instantly be at the mercy of anyone with greater physical or economic strength (far more than we are already)... we must move towards more financial regulation, not less. Sorry.

I realise you'll cry "not proper libertarianism" until government barely exists, but that's not an experiment worth its inherent risks at this stage. Each time regulations have been removed, people have stepped in (perfectly naturally) to exploit the new opportunities... the trends all show that Libertarianism doesn't work very well in practise... yes, there's never been a "perfect" test, with any luck there never will be.

[magma]

I'm going to come back to this but common sense is no reason to do or support anything, it's the laziest justification that exists

That's not what the argument implied. Replace common sense with 'smart enough'. Just because heroin is legal doesn't mean people will do it more. Just like people won't use knives to stab someone just because they're legal either.

A lot of people aren't "smart enough" to stop smoking when they've been explicitly informed that it will kill them. Your utopian "smart enough" human race will never exist. We're completely fucking mental and need taming.

[AllNightDayDream]

Do you not see the distinction between "I personally favor" and "I'll implement?". He's not going to implement the gold standard, period. He supports it, but he recognizes that abolishing the fed and reinstating a new currency would be disastrous. What he believes in is letting banks, or anyone, offer their own currency and let the people decide what they wanna use. If it's federal reserve notes, fine, if it's other money, fine. It's as easy as that. Here is the actual economic plan he recently released Search for 'competing currencies' and then search for 'gold standard'. He is confident that the market will pick gold, but that's it.

That various currency system has been in place before, and it was EXTREMELY volatile. The plan you linked is fairly vague to say the least. He's gonna honor social security, and somehow pay for it while allowing young people to opt out? And are all these competing currencies going to be insured by the FDIC? If so, then what is the point of issuing other currencies? In regards to commodity-money, like I said, the market makes it perfectly possible to consolidate assets into whatever kind of commodity or other hedge you like.

..but congress decided that housing should've been cheaper through monetary policy?

Congress doesn't decide monetary policy

and it was the retail banks that decided housing should be cheaper

[tyger]

a lot of debate since my last post, so i'll mostly try to add a few points not already covered ...

this makes a nonsense of RP's libertarianism. given that power is mainly concentrated in 2 places, government and big corporations, and he wants to reduce government regulation of corporations, that would just hand more power to the corporations (who have too much power already). this only increases freedom if you think corporations are real people (which incidentally is exactly what the courts believe, or pretend to), and that the bigger the corporation/person, the more important their interests should be.

Look, who do you think regulates the corporations through government? The corporations themselves. Anti-monpoly laws were lobbied by the.. yep, you gussed it, actual monopolies. Ron Paul doesn't allow that to happen and therefore gets the least corporate donations out of ANYONE running. His third quarter donations are mostly SMALL sums by A LOT of donors, and he was third in raising money. You'd think that if corporations would actually benefit from him over his competitors, his donations would be skyrocketing.

first, it is ridiculous to try to prove that a politician has sensible policies because he has less support from the 1% than some other politicians; that never follows. you can't even prove that his policies are anti-1% by that argument, because they may have any number of reasons for preferring other candidates - e.g. they have plenty of politicians to choose from and think some of the others are a little more predictable. any argument which goes "<a bad person> is against X, therefore we should be for X" is nonsense.

secondly, you seem very confused in your attitude to big corporations. you appear to be hostile to them, but you want to reduce regulations that limit their power. yes, they may try to capture the regulatory process, making it ineffective. but when regulation works, it limits corporate power. the minimum wage does not make corporations more powerful.

there are 2 major institutions which limit the freedom of individuals, the government and corporations. if you want more freedom, you should be concerned about reducing the power of both; and especially not to reduce the power of 1 in ways that will only increase the power of the other, not of the individual.

governmental power also has the advantage over corporate power that there is a mechanism, democracy, which can be used to make the government use its power in ways which are more in line with the values and interests of the 99%. (i don't mean it's easy to bring about democratic change. it's a huge, on-going struggle. but it's possible.) there is no similar mechanism to control corporations, so there is more need to take power away from them altogether.

we are still completely failing to regulate investment banking properly, and RP wants *less* regulation? R U mad, bro?

Overregulation was the problem. Congress decided that housing should be cheaper 10 years ago and regulated the market through mandated artificially low interest rates. The market isn't about business, it's about people. The market is supposed to be a reflection of human interact and exchange of goods and services. The government steps in and distorts that and tries to change it to their benefit.

wrong. the main problem was a failure to regulate irresponsible lending and derivative products. not the level of interest rates.

(nor is setting interest rates best described as regulation. i love semantics.)

[bigfootspartan]

But to answer this one.. he actually, he predicted the housing bubble:

Fascinating video... the poster actually thought that putting a metal backing track on his newsclip video would make it more awesome...