What's with the Ron Paul bandwagon?

farfromglorified

Baraka asked a very important question in this thread, and I'm going to repeat it here:

baraka wrote:

If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others?

Anyone, regardless of the political flag they choose to fly, must have an answer to the above question, and their answer should stem directly from the core principles they hold regaring human rights and the appropriate forms and functions of government. Furthermore, this question is quite pertinent to a discussion about Ron Paul, his popularity as a fringe candidate during this election cycle, and what that popularity says about America's economic and political values, particularly amongst the young.

It's quite sad to see this important question going largely unanswered in this thread, particularly by those who are offering a alternative vision for the structure of American governance. There is absolutely no shame in suggesting that government itself need not be responsible for protecting the rights of men, as alternative structures certainly are available and the underlying foundations of modern nation-states arguably preclude protection of those rights. However, to suggest that a social structure absent the state will magically resolve all issues related to interpersonal conflict and the violations of human rights is the height of foolishness.

Libertarians, anarchists, Constitutionalists, anti-state Republicans and any other advocate for a small, non-invasive state have a host of philosophical and practical arguments from which they can choose to support their positions. However, I am saddened to see so many people simply ignoring or even contradicting those buttresses while making slanderous remarks against the state and those who support state structures. As a life-long advocate for the dismantling of the American political machine, I've always prided myself in being part of a small group largely comprised of deliberate and principled thinkers. While I've been excited to see a person like Ron Paul bring these issues to such heights, I've also been quite saddened by those who have embraced his positions while ignoring the principles from which they stem.

There is no shame and no guilt in calmly telling anyone in this society that they do not own you and they have no authority to rule you. However, there is much shame and guilt in doing so without understanding why. Without understanding the rights of men, and the appropriate means for defending those rights, you will invariably, as so many have done before you, end up violating the rights of many.

I'd encourage everyone here to reconsider baraka's question and take a stab at a response.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others?

Any government, by its very nature, represents a form of "agreement" between men to sacrifice certain applications of their natural rights. That "agreement" can be coerced and forced (as in the case of a despotic regime), or it can be mutual (as in the case of a theoretically democratic regime) and therefore consistent with the actual definition of agreement. The measure of actual agreement giving legitimacy to any government will be inversely related to the amount of coercion and force employed by that government against its own people. In other words, the more laws and guns required by the state, the less actual agreement there is amongst the citizenry regarding the constitution of that state. Furthermore, that agreement can be logically sound (consistent), or it can be crippled by contradictions and subjectivity.

If individuals in society believe in the rights of life, liberty, and property, they are free to manufacture those rights by forming a government and criminalizing murder, despotism, and theft. Each member of that society can forgo their natural right to kill, to oppress, and to steal, and it would be very appropriate to use the structure of government to monitor the actions of each member of society in order to assess compliance with that agreement. However, no matter the structure of government, one cannot uphold life by killing, cannot uphold liberty by oppressing, and cannot uphold property by stealing. Furthermore, one cannot manufacture contradictory rights. One cannot have both the right to pollute and the right to live. One cannot have both the right to free enterprise and the right to own slaves. One cannot have both the right to privacy and the right to knowing everything about their neighbors. One cannot have the right to healthcare provided by others and the right to own their labor. The list of both theoretical and applied contradictions is quite long.

So, to answer your question more succinctly: the amount of regulation that must be employed by the state will be inversely related to the consistency of the population's values with the state's and, therefore, inversely related to the actual legitimacy of the state itself. Furthermore, the amount of regulation that must be employed by the state against actions the state is also guilty of, the more hypocritical and corrupt the state and therefore the more likely it is to violate the trust and rights of its citizens in the name of maintaining its power.

Ledbetterus

I just saw poll numbers on NBC from Iowa and New Hampshire and Paul didn't place in the top 4. Huckabee was leading Iowa and Romney was leading NH.

Seriously, if these polls are way wrong, why does everyone report them the same? I still have yet to see one good thing about Ron Paul on TV.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ledbetterus wrote:

I just saw poll numbers on NBC from Iowa and New Hampshire and Paul didn't place in the top 4. Huckabee was leading Iowa and Romney was leading NH.

Seriously, if these polls are way wrong, why does everyone report them the same? I still have yet to see one good thing about Ron Paul on TV.

Only those that follow international politics have any idea what's going on. The rest line up to choose candidates like menu items at McDonalds. It''s pretty sad.

Unfortunately the learning curve is steep.

Here's a rather succinct and accurate article:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/12/the-conspiracy-continues-the-democrats-and-war-funding/

So many vote like picking jellybean colors in a dish...just about as much thought goes into it for them. That's why the polls show the way they do.

Unaware. Uninformed.

t206

Ledbetterus wrote:

I just saw poll numbers on NBC from Iowa and New Hampshire and Paul didn't place in the top 4. Huckabee was leading Iowa and Romney was leading NH.

Seriously, if these polls are way wrong, why does everyone report them the same? I still have yet to see one good thing about Ron Paul on TV.

TV isnt the real place to get accurate information, and unfortunately the majority of the general public depends on it.

Try going to http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com or read/join the forums at http://www.ronpaulforums.com and you will find links to dozens if not hundreds of excellent articles that outline Paul's policies, and how he DOES in fact have a chance to win.

Or also you can try here: http://thecaseforronpaul.com/default.aspx

macgyver06

Ledbetterus wrote:

Excuse me for being in the dark. I consider myself somewhat political. However I haven't been paying *much* attention to this election yet. I am registered Democrat but consider myself an Independent. I haven't really looked into all of Election '08 yet so..

My question(s). Why has Ron Paul become the new "internet fad" (I use that term loosely)?

Every where I look, it's Ron Paul this, and Ron Paul that. I know he vying for the Republican nomination.. and I could be VERY wrong here, but I would think most PJ fans (US fans of course), consider themselves more on the liberal side. And I see a lot of Ron Paul stuff on the net (and everywhere in this forum), but most major networks seem to just write him off, at least from what I've seen.

So again, why are a lot of people, especially a lot of Democrats, in favor of Ron Paul? Is he the lesser of all evils? Are his proposed policies more liberal than his fellow Republican candidates?

If so, why not run Democrat? What makes him Republican?

I watched a good bit of the YouTube.com debate a week or so ago, and nothing really jumped out at me about this guy.

Can anyone give me a run down?

not a huge deal most of these people never leave their house so they miss voting day. all talk until it actually comes down to doing something this is ron pauls legacy.

mammasan

macgyver06 wrote:

not a huge deal most of these people never leave their house so they miss voting day. all talk until it actually comes down to doing something this is ron pauls legacy.

WOW!!! I am floored by your astute observation and in depth political analysis of Ron Paul supporters. Nevermind the fact that Paul's supports have been campaigning across the country en mass. You managed to cast aside all facts and produced this jewel of a statement. Look out Tim Russert, macgyver06 is a natural. This is the future of our country here ladies and gents.

macgyver06

mammasan wrote:

WOW!!! I am floored by your astute observation and in depth political analysis of Ron Paul supporters. Nevermind the fact that Paul's supports have been campaigning across the country en mass. You managed to cast aside all facts and produced this jewel of a statement. Look out Tim Russert, macgyver06 is a natural. This is the future of our country here ladies and gents.

actions speak louder than words

mammasan

macgyver06 wrote:

actions speak louder than words

Exactly and look at how much Ron Paul supporters have done. They have mobilized en mass to drum up support for their candidate. You can say what you want about Ron Paul's ideals and his policies but the fact remains that he is one of the most honest politicians in this race and his supporters are active in every which way possible in order to get him noticed and to drum up support. You can't argue those facts.

Thecure

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

What i'm getting from all this is, it sounds like you believe that MOST people who have children actualy can NOT afford to pay for their education.

That must mean you also belive that there are a very few in this country who can and SHOULD be forced to pay for the education of the masses.
(which, by the way, is a complete fallacy. the people really paying are those not born yet. and all of us in terms of dollar devaluation)

On the flip side, when asked if a family should be expected to understand the TRUE cost of raising a child and budget for that expense, you say "NO" and "Let those who CAN afford it pay for other peoples education, because it fundamentaly benefits them".

Taking that logic, we should pay for every junkie on the street to get clean, every homeless person in america to get a house, every poor person in our town to have a meal for the evening, and every old person to get their medical care?

Sure, there are plenty of things that "benefit" me ... but there is no fucking free lunch, and when people think there is, they are provided no motivation to go out and find a lunch that is within their budget.

Don't you people understand that fundamental fallacy in logic?

Sure it is a problem today, but we should be looking for REAL solutions that phase out the problem, NOT ENCOURAGE IT.

Continuing to subisidize childhood education only ENCOURAGES people to have babies WITHOUT accounting for that childs very real expenses.

Also, you should know that most of that education is not paid for with current taxes, it's paid for in bonds and long term notes ...

that IS a "tax", just not on you an me ... it's a tax on those same children you just said you were helping ... but instead you are birthing them in to a world of future debt ...

and the way you folks want it you want an ever increasing number of those children (since no one has any reason to NOT have them) and you want them to be buried not only in the future tax debt of their own education ... but that of millions of other "unfortunate" childrens ALONG with the huge debt of the social security needs of their parents and grandparents (who just shlepped the cost on to them, thinking it was their civic duty to pay for it) and the cost of their neighbors welfare, etc etc etc.

It's not me being cruel.
Its you who do not understand that their IS NO FREE LUNCH, and that by not DISCOURAGING such thought, you are inherently ENCOURAGING it, and such 'logic' fundamentaly perverts the market, the system, and society in general.

When people do not feel personaly restrained in their lifestyle choices by the real need to budget for themselves and their family, watch out! The end result will be poverty for EVERYONE.

Why?
Because if THEY aren't paying for it, we ALL are paying for it ... and while it sounds good on paper ... you are basicaly saying MOST people can't afford it, so we should distribute that burden on to everyone ... but guess what ... you just said it, MOST people CAN NOT afford it.

So, at the end of the day, what can't be afforded CAN NOT be afforded. It has to stop.

And i take exception to you saying something like "administrative costs have to come down but that is not the point" ... um, that IS the point. Government services are always INFLATED. Go ask Rudy Giuliani why New York was going bankrupt when he took office. It was because the city was handing out welfare and free lunches all over town, and the subidized wages of city employees was often 25-75% HIGHER than market wages! Guess who paid for that mistake? EVERYONE!


[edit: BTW, Roland is right. If you got rid of the Fed, the pyramid scheme imbalance of the 1% having 35% of the wealth, with 90% having less than the 1% would begin to reverse, and rapidly. That would put more people in a position to afford the education you claim they cant be burdened with. You just aren't looking at all the pieces of the puzzle. It is YOU who are being myopic.]

you seem to believe that all people on welfare are living it up and loving it. secondly, there are people out there that live very tight every month to get the basics like food and rent.

t206

macgyver06 wrote:

actions speak louder than words

Here are your actions...straw poll results which require supporters to get off the internet, get in a car or walk to a physical location, and punch Paul's name on a ballot.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

That sure is a lot of wins that real took lots of real people in real places to get. This is just a summary, the link above shows details on every straw poll.

Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 41-7-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 32-16-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 32-15-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 42-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 40-6-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 45-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 44-2-0

Yoyoyo

baraka wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school

In the USA and Canada, elementary or secondary school supported and administered by state and local officials.

United States

Main article: Education in the United States

Public-school education in the United States is provided mainly by local governments, with control and funding coming from three levels: federal, state, and local.


So you are cool with paying state taxes to support public schools?

I would/do support school systems run by state and local officials.

The Federal government is not supposed to be in the business of educating our youth, they are crossing the boundries of their authority.

Yoyoyo

farfromglorified wrote:

Baraka asked a very important question in this thread, and I'm going to repeat it here:

Originally Posted by baraka
If it is the legitimate function of government to protect the lives, liberties and property of its citizens ( a libertarian staple), then isn't it clearly the function of government to regulate the activities of private individuals and corporations that threaten the lives, liberties and property of others?


I'd encourage everyone here to reconsider baraka's question and take a stab at a response.

If the regulations fall within the mandate of a government, then yes government have been authorized to regulate. But does public education fall within the mandate given to the US federal government?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Once the majority of democrats realize Ron Paul is in fact not a republican, it's a done deal.

The word just has to get around. It's already spreading like wildfire.

Every generation has it's revolution. The time is here.

farfromglorified

Mestophar wrote:

If the regulations fall within the mandate of a government, then yes government have been authorized to regulate. But does public education fall within the mandate given to the US federal government?

Per the mandate of American voters, yes. Per the Constitution, absolutely not.