I may have said it before, but it's interesting to see criticism of someone toeing the party line while they themselves fall into step with the Ron Paul party line.
Not sure who this is in reference to, but I'll respond because I did call out someone on this:
1) Ron Paul isn't a political "party" - he's a human being. Although he's running for President as a Republican, many think he could have run just as easily as a Democrat. He is thought to be a libertarian if anything, but he really doesn't toe any party line - anyone who says he does, doesn't know what they are talking about. He's an individual. There's no "party line" associated with his personal ideology. Equating his personal ideology to party ideology makes no sense.
2) I don't always agree with Ron Paul, but I do very, very frequently. One thing I like about Ron Paul is he blends two sects of political ideologies that are often thought to HAVE to be SEPARATE by the cheerleaders of each side of the political party football game - such as yourself with the Dems.
3) Bottom line - this isn't a football game. These policies have effects on human beings. Cheering on one side of the political party machine - as if the opposition (which is really just a different arm of the same political machine) is the whole problem - is just plain ignorant. It's the act of blindly cheering that's the problem. It's the people who hate Rush that love Maddow or the people that love Hannity that hate Matthews.
Ron Paul - is basically saying... stop buying the snake oil. Wake up, although both sides have good ideas at times, they both suck at implementing them, probably because of special interests. It doesn't have to be this way. Politicians don't need to buy hook line and sinker for special interests... and until voters give men like Ron Paul the respect they deserve, this will continue.
But, I digress... you can go back cheering on MSNBC hosts. Enjoy.
who is cheering msnbc hosts?
and yes, these policies have effects on human beings, which is why i believe that social security, and fema, and disaster relief, and medicare, and medicaid are essential things. doing away with them would negatively effect millions of people. and in my opinion, this is the fundamental flaw with libertarian philosophy. it does not take into account the effects on human beings.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
well this is why i don't fully buy libertarianism. it's central formation is i don't give a fuck about anybody but myself. it's so centrally focused that most of those who believe in it show little ability to have compassion for others because they are too busy being victimized or trying to keep their head above water that they don't realize how privileged they are. again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
i am assuming that this is a dig at me. i am asking you to find one post from me in the last 12 years where i was in support of war. i do not change my convictions based on who is in office. and i can say the same for a lot of the liberal posters who have come and gone on here over the years. on this forum i spoke out against all wars and military endeavers since the invasion of afghanistan. i spoke out against intervention in libya, syria, drone attacks, potential war in iran, etc etc. i have condemned obama for many things. keeping gitmo open, human rights violations, expanding the wars, drone strikes, extending the patriot act, building closer ties with israel, just to name a few for the sake of brevity. i am against all war at all times. i am against all capital punishment. i am for entitlements and taxes to pay for them. these are all principles of the democratic party, but the democratic party is not liberal enough for me, so i am an independant liberal who will vote democrat over republican or libertarian if the democrat is my best choice. that is not completely towing any party line. i think your gripe with me is that i am not vocal enough. to be honest, i have been railing against the very same things since 2000 and nothing has changed. all of the protests, all of the letters to people in government, all of the posting on online forums, has yielded nothing of the results that i want. i have been doing this for 12 years and at times i feel like i can no longer fight with the same vigor. that does not mean that i am giving obama a pass on any of this. has he earned my vote? no. but if the election were between him and romney he gets it. if the election were between him and paul, i can not agree with paul's domestic policies enough to vote for him.
i understand your respect for paul, but unfortunately ron paul's legacy is not going to be what you have listed above. his legacy is going to be rand paul. and i think that that is terrible. rand paul has endorsed romney instead of his father, and that say a lot...
What I am saying is that you, and many other like minded D (or R's for that matter), is you change your ideology to fit what's best for the guy you have in office. If your party says it is against unprompted war, and your guy bombs Libya, it's ok... there was a good reason for it - this time, but last time (when the other guy was in office) there wasn't. If your guy does something similar to the guy with R listed on his chest, it's ok. There's always a caveat. There's unwavering support - not of positions, of parties. It's a fucking political football game. It's not really issues you're all concerned with, it's continuing to "win" the game. I mean look at gimme's own words - "he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning" blah blah blah... what is winning what exactly? Do you think any one on either side really won anything substantial over the past 10 years? Besides contracts and the thought that they have power?
Ron Paul is different. He's not after what you, and your ilk, want him to be after - he's not after winning for the sake of winning. I mean those involved in watching the game know this, and it fucking rattles them. That's why you (or they) are so scared of him. He' gathering attention, bringing in leftists and conservatives and creating a new ideology of ideas that is challenging the powers that be. That's scary to the two-team league of R's and D's - and their supporters. They have their monopoly of playing against one another in the BCS of politics. During the game and afterwards, each guy gets kickbacks from the organizations they support and retires to give speeches for thousands of thousands of bucks. Ron Paul, and others like him, is a threat to that very system.
This guy offers hope and provides evidence that there's some credibility in politics left out there. He doesn't waver in the wind. He sticks to his principals. You don't have to agree with everything he says to give him some respect, in fact, you could disagree with most, but acknowledge the guy believes and practices what he believes.
The system is broke - you don't have to be a Ron Paul supporter. But, please... don't be blind to the fact that there you are bringing a figurative donkey sweater/cap and foam finger to every debate on politics.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
well this is why i don't fully buy libertarianism. it's central formation is i don't give a fuck about anybody but myself. it's so centrally focused that most of those who believe in it show little ability to have compassion for others because they are too busy being victimized or trying to keep their head above water that they don't realize how privileged they are. again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
actually it is that we don't need government to do everything for us. Sure some elements are about leaving people to their own devices, but if you listen to Ron Paul specifically, and it is right on in my opinion, people in communities should take care of each other. Governments and force aren't needed to do everything and don't build the all for one attitude people want anyway. You can't do that through force.
I guess some feel that people need to be forced to do it. Which says more about their view of humanity than it does about what a governments role should be in my opinion.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
well this is why i don't fully buy libertarianism. it's central formation is i don't give a fuck about anybody but myself.
No - that's not really it at all. Libertarians probably care a lot more about general welfare, than other ideologies. But, let's clarify something - Are you trying to say someone who's against the government taking their money, can't be charitable? I mean think about it - that's complete and total bullshit. Someone who believes the they can do more "good" with their own money than government, is not someone who "doesn't give a fuck about anybody but myself"... instead, it's someone who believes they can do more with their money than government can.
it's so centrally focused that most of those who believe in it show little ability to have compassion for others because they are too busy being victimized or trying to keep their head above water that they don't realize how privileged they are.
Another asinine sentence.... libertarians are people who believe in free will - and basic freedom. They don't think the government needs to involve themselves in implementation of "good". Their rational is government is very frequently twisted - what's good for one politician, may not be "good" for another - and this isn't even getting into special interests and how they dictate politicians who forcefully dictate their agenda to citizens. Instead, libertarians believe individuals should implement their own form of good in their own lives. Individual freedom is not selfishness - it's life. We have free will.
Government dictation is not individual freedom... in fact, any form of forced dictation is probably more aligned with selfishness - than the counter.
again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
Free market are always altered by human influence - by their very nature. I mean "demand" is influenced by humans, as is supply. Your points are non-coherent.
i understand your respect for paul, but unfortunately ron paul's legacy is not going to be what you have listed above. his legacy is going to be rand paul. and i think that that is terrible. rand paul has endorsed romney instead of his father, and that say a lot...
Rand is playing politics. He is a member of a party. I guarantee you that His endorsement of Romney came after careful counting of actual delegates that will be sent to the convention. Not at a time when his father still had a chance to win the nomination.
He isn't his father, and I don't think people who are at all educated enough to form a qualified opinion on what someone's legacy may or may not be would say that the only thing Ron did in all his time in gov't was to have a baby, name it Rand, and watch it get elected to the senate.
Anyone who calls Rand his only legacy will be doing so with intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Paul has been a voice that needed to be heard. He himself may not have been able to win the nomination, but I do think his influence at the grass roots level drove people in the thousands to get involved in local political parties and to take leadership positions in those parties. If those same people stay the course and truly change the direction of the GOP...that will be his legacy. If they don't, his legacy will be "let it not be said that we did nothing." He tried to change the politics of the GOP in washington, he did so by speech, vote, and example.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Libertarians generally believe that the State has the right to implement laws, but that the General (Federal) government stays out of daily life. The General government is only supposed to do two main things; protect the States from invasion and attack, and negotiate international treaties on behalf of the States.
Oh I also prefer the country to be called THESE United States of America. That's what we were until Lincoln came along.
well this is why i don't fully buy libertarianism. it's central formation is i don't give a fuck about anybody but myself. it's so centrally focused that most of those who believe in it show little ability to have compassion for others because they are too busy being victimized or trying to keep their head above water that they don't realize how privileged they are. again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
actually it is that we don't need government to do everything for us. Sure some elements are about leaving people to their own devices, but if you listen to Ron Paul specifically, and it is right on in my opinion, people in communities should take care of each other. Governments and force aren't needed to do everything and don't build the all for one attitude people want anyway. You can't do that through force.
I guess some feel that people need to be forced to do it. Which says more about their view of humanity than it does about what a governments role should be in my opinion.
isn't this then just a ramped up example of trickle down economics whereby the very rich get more money and by their own generosity will use said money to help others out? that's basically gotten us to a space where wealth disparity in this country is as high as the late 20s-early 30s. human beings have shown a general level of not giving a fuck about anybody but themselves for a long ass time. if we don't have a government to level the playing field, in some respects, then class, racial, gender, and sexual inequities will only widen. this is what has happened over the last 40 years or so, since every president has been basically the same. of course the government could do a better job with how they are spending our tax dollar revenue, but i don't see that as being a reason to dismantle it in favor of letting people to their own devices. as you say government shouldn't need to force it, but recent history has demonstrated that it needs to. i mean if we really gave a fuck about anybody how would we live with ourselves when we dress ourselves in clothes sewn by children in slave conditions? or use any product made in those conditions? that's what i'm saying, even i have demonstrated the ability to not give a fuck about others, and it will only continue if we get rid of government.
well this is why i don't fully buy libertarianism. it's central formation is i don't give a fuck about anybody but myself.
No - that's not really it at all. Libertarians probably care a lot more about general welfare, than other ideologies. But, let's clarify something - Are you trying to say someone who's against the government taking their money, can't be charitable? I mean think about it - that's complete and total bullshit. Someone who believes the they can do more "good" with their own money than government, is not someone who "doesn't give a fuck about anybody but myself"... instead, it's someone who believes they can do more with their money than government can.
they don't, this has been well documented you are ignoring facts...
it's so centrally focused that most of those who believe in it show little ability to have compassion for others because they are too busy being victimized or trying to keep their head above water that they don't realize how privileged they are.
Another asinine sentence.... libertarians are people who believe in free will - and basic freedom. They don't think the government needs to involve themselves in implementation of "good". Their rational is government is very frequently twisted - what's good for one politician, may not be "good" for another - and this isn't even getting into special interests and how they dictate politicians who forcefully dictate their agenda to citizens. Instead, libertarians believe individuals should implement their own form of good in their own lives. Individual freedom is not selfishness - it's life. We have free will.
free will is a completely asinine statement that complete disregards social forces that constrain and enable "free will". this is really the crux of our disagreement and the fact that you can't see it demonstrates how insular you are.
Government dictation is not individual freedom... in fact, any form of forced dictation is probably more aligned with selfishness - than the counter.
again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
Free market are always altered by human influence - by their very nature. I mean "demand" is influenced by humans, as is supply. Your points are non-coherent.
you aren't getting the point then to think that free markets will simply run on supply and demand based on need is the crux of libertarian philosophy and that's so far outdated that it has never made sense. who decides what something is "worth" has more to do with marketing than need, quality of product and so on. business studies since the 50s were literally all about how to get something to break fast enough yet maintain consumer alliance.
well this is why i don't fully buy libertarianism. it's central formation is i don't give a fuck about anybody but myself. it's so centrally focused that most of those who believe in it show little ability to have compassion for others because they are too busy being victimized or trying to keep their head above water that they don't realize how privileged they are. again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
actually it is that we don't need government to do everything for us. Sure some elements are about leaving people to their own devices, but if you listen to Ron Paul specifically, and it is right on in my opinion, people in communities should take care of each other. Governments and force aren't needed to do everything and don't build the all for one attitude people want anyway. You can't do that through force.
I guess some feel that people need to be forced to do it. Which says more about their view of humanity than it does about what a governments role should be in my opinion.
isn't this then just a ramped up example of trickle down economics whereby the very rich get more money and by their own generosity will use said money to help others out? that's basically gotten us to a space where wealth disparity in this country is as high as the late 20s-early 30s. human beings have shown a general level of not giving a fuck about anybody but themselves for a long ass time. if we don't have a government to level the playing field, in some respects, then class, racial, gender, and sexual inequities will only widen. this is what has happened over the last 40 years or so, since every president has been basically the same. of course the government could do a better job with how they are spending our tax dollar revenue, but i don't see that as being a reason to dismantle it in favor of letting people to their own devices. as you say government shouldn't need to force it, but recent history has demonstrated that it needs to. i mean if we really gave a fuck about anybody how would we live with ourselves when we dress ourselves in clothes sewn by children in slave conditions? or use any product made in those conditions? that's what i'm saying, even i have demonstrated the ability to not give a fuck about others, and it will only continue if we get rid of government.
FREE MARKET DOESN'T MEAN BUSINESSES CAN BECOME SLAVE OWNERS. You still can't do things that harm others. there, got that off my chest. Human/civil rights can still be regulated. Human rights aren't a market.
I don't understand how you think trickle down economics applies to a free market. It isn't a result of any market, it is the result of tax policy...isn't it? No matter who the gov't gives benefits to, poor or rich, it always ends up in the hands of someone wealthier than the person who got it. Rich people do fund charities, I hate to break it to you. Rich people do a lot of good things. Some are shitty, but so are some poor people.
It is kind of a vicious cycle in a way...Take minimum wage for example. Part of the reason minimum wage is needed is because of inflation and cost of living increases. People wouldn't need as much money if inflation was a larger focus of the Federal gov't, more people could be hired. Thus dropping unemployment. But when a job market gets saturated because companies are required to pay a certain amount, the law of supply and demand is not able to respond to get more people working by lowering wages. Make sense? wages would then go up as unemployment went down. Hopefully keeping up with inflation. If it doesn't, the government is at fault, not the company for it is their job to control inflation of the currency to the best of their ability.
Inequality is also not a market. you still won't be able to violate civil rights in this country and discriminate based on race, gender or whatever else the EEOC wants.
One could easily argue that we have never had a free market. That gov'ts have always regulated them, often times in the favor of large companies instead of promoting competition. Why do you think GE has an entire team dedicated to getting tax credits. The only markets I can really think of that were free were inter/intra-tribal trade.
You can look it up, but corporate donations to campaigns are more useful and provide a higher RoR to companies who are in more HEAVILY REGULATED markets. A market free from government help/hindrance would operate on its own. IMO the largest companies in the world are the ones who do not want a completely free market buy the way...the little guys would have more of a chance to succeed in my opinion.
A free market is free from Gov't choosing winners and losers. It is free from intervention for companies that operate badly and fail. The government would be freed up so that the civil rights of the workers could be better protected actually. Regulating labor laws wouldn't be an industry by industry thing, it would be uniform. A free market doesn't mean it is a pirates life for all of us...Look at the latest human rights abuses, who is perpetrating them? gov'ts or corporations?
The free market isn't all negative, I don't like it when it is portrayed as such. It isn't perfect either, but it is a better solution than the type we have now IMO of course.
Where have you been, I like debating with you?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
Free market are always altered by human influence - by their very nature. I mean "demand" is influenced by humans, as is supply. Your points are non-coherent.
you aren't getting the point then to think that free markets will simply run on supply and demand based on need is the crux of libertarian philosophy and that's so far outdated that it has never made sense. who decides what something is "worth" has more to do with marketing than need, quality of product and so on. business studies since the 50s were literally all about how to get something to break fast enough yet maintain consumer alliance.[/quote]
The market decides. Something is worth what someone will give you for it. That simple. If you can convince them to give you $50 for a pencil good work. That pencil was worth $50 to the person who bought it. But I bet you won't stay in business long if you are selling $50 pencils
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
again i agree with the ending wars stuff, and letting people live their own ways socially, but the idea that we could ever achieve free markets devoid of human influence is as ridiculous as thinking we could have a perfectly communist lifestyle (something i hoped for once upon a time).
Free market are always altered by human influence - by their very nature. I mean "demand" is influenced by humans, as is supply. Your points are non-coherent.
you aren't getting the point then to think that free markets will simply run on supply and demand based on need is the crux of libertarian philosophy and that's so far outdated that it has never made sense. who decides what something is "worth" has more to do with marketing than need, quality of product and so on. business studies since the 50s were literally all about how to get something to break fast enough yet maintain consumer alliance.
The market decides. Something is worth what someone will give you for it. That simple. If you can convince them to give you $50 for a pencil good work. That pencil was worth $50 to the person who bought it. But I bet you won't stay in business long if you are selling $50 pencils[/quote]
actually...not pencils but hasn't cross been able to sell 50 dollar+ pens for years? it's a frigging pen haha. i've been teaching all summer so my wife can cut down to 36 hrs a week. been in hibernation mode and today's the last day. once i get back to writing up my research i'll be back i swear.
actually...not pencils but hasn't cross been able to sell 50 dollar+ pens for years? it's a frigging pen haha. i've been teaching all summer so my wife can cut down to 36 hrs a week. been in hibernation mode and today's the last day. once i get back to writing up my research i'll be back i swear.
Yes, there is a HUMONGOUS gray market for cross pens. My dad had a bunch of cross pens and fountain pens when he died and we sold them to some collector for 1200. They probably made that guy 5 times as much but we didn't care...we all thought it was silly to buy them for that much...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i am assuming that this is a dig at me. i am asking you to find one post from me in the last 12 years where i was in support of war. i do not change my convictions based on who is in office.
Ok. I've seen what I've seen - and truthfully - you're up there as most partisan poster here from what I've read. That's my take and I knew you wouldn't agree... fair enough. Anyway, I'm not wasting my time digging through tons of old posts, but since you asked I did a quick search "libya"... and this is the first exchange I viewed:
Poster 1: I don't understand how he can support a warmonger. Poster 2:
At the risk of stating the obvious; Obama didn't start these wars, he inherited them from the previous incumbent. And if he'd pulled all the troops out the day he took office it would have done more harm than good. Poster 3: He didn't inherit Libya.
point being that we did not "go it alone" and start a coalition of the willing. we were asked for help, we helped and relinqueshed the leadership role. we are not occupying libya.
i will bet that people would be complaining if we hadn't gotten involved there, because nothing is more important than delivering freedom at the barrel of a gun, right?
So – bottom line, you seem to have been supporting the decision or at least defending it. You do that a lot. Pretty much whatever Barry O says – you go with from what I've read. You’re not alone. Lots of people fall hook, line and sinker for partisan politics. They don't care as much about platforms (or policy), they care about their "side" or "team" or "party". My point – it’s one thing to have those beliefs and stick to them. It’s another to change them based upon the person who’s in office. You do the latter.
i am assuming that this is a dig at me. i am asking you to find one post from me in the last 12 years where i was in support of war.
A vote for Obama is a vote for all these things you apparently disagree with. They are not the hot topic with you that that you pretend they are. You arm chair cheer. Afghanistan, Free Palestine, drones, Iran, Syria, Lybia etc. Talk is cheap.
It's easy to say you don't support current wars and foreign decisions that are currently being made on various issues. If you are a progressive whose main issue is ending the imperial wars, then you now finally have a candidate you can get behind and support. Surely Paul is the only logical choice for anti war voters?
Either you're not as antiwar as you like to think you are or it's just not that important to you and there are other issues you deem more of an issue. So which is it?
i am assuming that this is a dig at me. i am asking you to find one post from me in the last 12 years where i was in support of war. i do not change my convictions based on who is in office.
Ok. I've seen what I've seen - and truthfully - you're up there as most partisan poster here from what I've read. That's my take and I knew you wouldn't agree... fair enough. Anyway, I'm not wasting my time digging through tons of old posts, but since you asked I did a quick search "libya"... and this is the first exchange I viewed:
Poster 1: I don't understand how he can support a warmonger. Poster 2:
At the risk of stating the obvious; Obama didn't start these wars, he inherited them from the previous incumbent. And if he'd pulled all the troops out the day he took office it would have done more harm than good. Poster 3: He didn't inherit Libya.
point being that we did not "go it alone" and start a coalition of the willing. we were asked for help, we helped and relinqueshed the leadership role. we are not occupying libya.
i will bet that people would be complaining if we hadn't gotten involved there, because nothing is more important than delivering freedom at the barrel of a gun, right?
So – bottom line, you seem to have been supporting the decision or at least defending it. You do that a lot. Pretty much whatever Barry O says – you go with from what I've read. You’re not alone. Lots of people fall hook, line and sinker for partisan politics. They don't care as much about platforms (or policy), they care about their "side" or "team" or "party". My point – it’s one thing to have those beliefs and stick to them. It’s another to change them based upon the person who’s in office. You do the latter.
Comments
and yes, these policies have effects on human beings, which is why i believe that social security, and fema, and disaster relief, and medicare, and medicaid are essential things. doing away with them would negatively effect millions of people. and in my opinion, this is the fundamental flaw with libertarian philosophy. it does not take into account the effects on human beings.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i understand your respect for paul, but unfortunately ron paul's legacy is not going to be what you have listed above. his legacy is going to be rand paul. and i think that that is terrible. rand paul has endorsed romney instead of his father, and that say a lot...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
actually it is that we don't need government to do everything for us. Sure some elements are about leaving people to their own devices, but if you listen to Ron Paul specifically, and it is right on in my opinion, people in communities should take care of each other. Governments and force aren't needed to do everything and don't build the all for one attitude people want anyway. You can't do that through force.
I guess some feel that people need to be forced to do it. Which says more about their view of humanity than it does about what a governments role should be in my opinion.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No - that's not really it at all. Libertarians probably care a lot more about general welfare, than other ideologies. But, let's clarify something - Are you trying to say someone who's against the government taking their money, can't be charitable? I mean think about it - that's complete and total bullshit. Someone who believes the they can do more "good" with their own money than government, is not someone who "doesn't give a fuck about anybody but myself"... instead, it's someone who believes they can do more with their money than government can.
Another asinine sentence.... libertarians are people who believe in free will - and basic freedom. They don't think the government needs to involve themselves in implementation of "good". Their rational is government is very frequently twisted - what's good for one politician, may not be "good" for another - and this isn't even getting into special interests and how they dictate politicians who forcefully dictate their agenda to citizens. Instead, libertarians believe individuals should implement their own form of good in their own lives. Individual freedom is not selfishness - it's life. We have free will.
Government dictation is not individual freedom... in fact, any form of forced dictation is probably more aligned with selfishness - than the counter.
Free market are always altered by human influence - by their very nature. I mean "demand" is influenced by humans, as is supply. Your points are non-coherent.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Rand is playing politics. He is a member of a party. I guarantee you that His endorsement of Romney came after careful counting of actual delegates that will be sent to the convention. Not at a time when his father still had a chance to win the nomination.
He isn't his father, and I don't think people who are at all educated enough to form a qualified opinion on what someone's legacy may or may not be would say that the only thing Ron did in all his time in gov't was to have a baby, name it Rand, and watch it get elected to the senate.
Anyone who calls Rand his only legacy will be doing so with intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Paul has been a voice that needed to be heard. He himself may not have been able to win the nomination, but I do think his influence at the grass roots level drove people in the thousands to get involved in local political parties and to take leadership positions in those parties. If those same people stay the course and truly change the direction of the GOP...that will be his legacy. If they don't, his legacy will be "let it not be said that we did nothing." He tried to change the politics of the GOP in washington, he did so by speech, vote, and example.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Oh I also prefer the country to be called THESE United States of America. That's what we were until Lincoln came along.
FREE MARKET DOESN'T MEAN BUSINESSES CAN BECOME SLAVE OWNERS. You still can't do things that harm others. there, got that off my chest. Human/civil rights can still be regulated. Human rights aren't a market.
I don't understand how you think trickle down economics applies to a free market. It isn't a result of any market, it is the result of tax policy...isn't it? No matter who the gov't gives benefits to, poor or rich, it always ends up in the hands of someone wealthier than the person who got it. Rich people do fund charities, I hate to break it to you. Rich people do a lot of good things. Some are shitty, but so are some poor people.
It is kind of a vicious cycle in a way...Take minimum wage for example. Part of the reason minimum wage is needed is because of inflation and cost of living increases. People wouldn't need as much money if inflation was a larger focus of the Federal gov't, more people could be hired. Thus dropping unemployment. But when a job market gets saturated because companies are required to pay a certain amount, the law of supply and demand is not able to respond to get more people working by lowering wages. Make sense? wages would then go up as unemployment went down. Hopefully keeping up with inflation. If it doesn't, the government is at fault, not the company for it is their job to control inflation of the currency to the best of their ability.
Inequality is also not a market. you still won't be able to violate civil rights in this country and discriminate based on race, gender or whatever else the EEOC wants.
One could easily argue that we have never had a free market. That gov'ts have always regulated them, often times in the favor of large companies instead of promoting competition. Why do you think GE has an entire team dedicated to getting tax credits. The only markets I can really think of that were free were inter/intra-tribal trade.
You can look it up, but corporate donations to campaigns are more useful and provide a higher RoR to companies who are in more HEAVILY REGULATED markets. A market free from government help/hindrance would operate on its own. IMO the largest companies in the world are the ones who do not want a completely free market buy the way...the little guys would have more of a chance to succeed in my opinion.
A free market is free from Gov't choosing winners and losers. It is free from intervention for companies that operate badly and fail. The government would be freed up so that the civil rights of the workers could be better protected actually. Regulating labor laws wouldn't be an industry by industry thing, it would be uniform. A free market doesn't mean it is a pirates life for all of us...Look at the latest human rights abuses, who is perpetrating them? gov'ts or corporations?
The free market isn't all negative, I don't like it when it is portrayed as such. It isn't perfect either, but it is a better solution than the type we have now IMO of course.
Where have you been, I like debating with you?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The market decides. Something is worth what someone will give you for it. That simple. If you can convince them to give you $50 for a pencil good work. That pencil was worth $50 to the person who bought it. But I bet you won't stay in business long if you are selling $50 pencils
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The market decides. Something is worth what someone will give you for it. That simple. If you can convince them to give you $50 for a pencil good work. That pencil was worth $50 to the person who bought it. But I bet you won't stay in business long if you are selling $50 pencils[/quote]
actually...not pencils but hasn't cross been able to sell 50 dollar+ pens for years? it's a frigging pen haha. i've been teaching all summer so my wife can cut down to 36 hrs a week. been in hibernation mode and today's the last day. once i get back to writing up my research i'll be back i swear.
Yes, there is a HUMONGOUS gray market for cross pens. My dad had a bunch of cross pens and fountain pens when he died and we sold them to some collector for 1200. They probably made that guy 5 times as much but we didn't care...we all thought it was silly to buy them for that much...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Ok. I've seen what I've seen - and truthfully - you're up there as most partisan poster here from what I've read. That's my take and I knew you wouldn't agree... fair enough. Anyway, I'm not wasting my time digging through tons of old posts, but since you asked I did a quick search "libya"... and this is the first exchange I viewed:
Poster 1: I don't understand how he can support a warmonger.
Poster 2:
At the risk of stating the obvious; Obama didn't start these wars, he inherited them from the previous incumbent. And if he'd pulled all the troops out the day he took office it would have done more harm than good.
Poster 3: He didn't inherit Libya.
Poster 3: Point being what?
So – bottom line, you seem to have been supporting the decision or at least defending it. You do that a lot. Pretty much whatever Barry O says – you go with from what I've read. You’re not alone. Lots of people fall hook, line and sinker for partisan politics. They don't care as much about platforms (or policy), they care about their "side" or "team" or "party". My point – it’s one thing to have those beliefs and stick to them. It’s another to change them based upon the person who’s in office. You do the latter.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
It's easy to say you don't support current wars and foreign decisions that are currently being made on various issues. If you are a progressive whose main issue is ending the imperial wars, then you now finally have a candidate you can get behind and support. Surely Paul is the only logical choice for anti war voters?
Either you're not as antiwar as you like to think you are or it's just not that important to you and there are other issues you deem more of an issue. So which is it?
Strong