Master Index of Archived Threads
Ron Paul
| DocTee Jan 10 2008 04:23 PM |
|
Internet phenon?
|
| RealityChuck Jan 10 2008 04:52 PM |
|
Libertarian. Which means he's an infantile idiot. The basic philosophy of Libertarianism is "me me me me me me me me."
|
| AG/DC Jan 10 2008 08:22 PM |
|
Let's be fair to our libertarian brothers and sisters.
|
| Nymr83 Jan 10 2008 09:23 PM |
|
|
the basic philosophy is "leave mememememe alone!" the basic premise of socialism on the other hand is "gimme!"
|
| AG/DC Jan 10 2008 09:28 PM |
|
See what you started?
|
| martin Jan 11 2008 06:41 AM |
|
|
some people like to keep what they earn. others like to take what other people earn. which is selfish? if a person wants freedom from manipulation by the government is that selfish? i suppose it is, but not in the negative way that you imply. is the soldier who wants to be free from international entanglements so he can come home selfish? is opposition to patriot act selfish, because privacy is for self-serving jerks? me me me me!
|
| RealityChuck Jan 11 2008 06:55 AM |
||||
|
It's simple egotism: if it doesn't help me, then it's not needed. It is the political philosophy of arrested adolescents.
OTOH, one doesn't have to be a libertarian to oppose a war. International fights are all different, and only the type of political naif that libertarianism attracts is stupid enough to think that every international situation is the same.
Ultimately, libertarianism is an unsophisticated and self-serving philosophy that postulates we're all better off as hermits living in caves and doing what we please.
|
| martin Jan 11 2008 07:14 AM |
||
|
i guess they cared about their rights. me me me. my rights, my freedoms! all about me.
libertarianism doesnt stop you from involving yourself with everyone. you can give all your money away to the most noble causes available if you like. you can be the most cooperative person on the planet. in fact, you will probably have more money available for your causes. but i guess that isnt enough, you want to force everyone to do things your way? you want the collective to share your values. me me me.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Jan 11 2008 07:30 AM |
|
Should it be legal to dump sewage in the river?
|
| Vic Sage Jan 11 2008 10:22 AM |
|
|
As i said in the AP thread about Paul (and libertarianism):
That's only because the only thing they know about Ron Paul is (a) he's the only Republican openly against the war, and (b) he's a straight talker. Maher has a strong streak of libertarianism, but only up to a point. Maher does agree that there needs to be a federal government, and that citizens need to pay taxes to support it (sorry, Namor). He wants it to focus on national defense and defense of the environment, for example, but stay out of people's personal lives, and to stop using religious rationales for its public policies. Paul, on the other hand, is a strict "state's rights" libertarian, who is fine with government limitations on liberty, as long as they occur on the state level, rather than the federal level. Paul has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples, including same-sex adoption. Paul calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion, advocating the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion. In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols, texts, and images. The Act would make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments. Paul supports elimination of most federal government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies. He opposes gun control. He favors withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations, supports free trade but not NAFTA or the World Trade Organization. He supports ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens, opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty, and he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He is a principled and honorable man, and people resond to that about him. But his positions would undermine the national government's ability to guarantee the civil liberties he is so strident in protecting, and the country could fracture into 50 separate nations, with no national identity beyond "leave me alone". Lincoln told the southern states they couldn't keep their slaves, and they've never really gotten over it. "states rights" is just the banner for "we can be as stupid, venal, evil, petty and bigoted as we want, and we don't want no northerners tellin us we can't." As Maher has often said, he believes government is capable of doing good in people's lives. He says of the Republicans that they're in a win-win sitation because they claim that government sucks, and when they get elected, they prove it by fucking up, and then say, "see? we told you!". So i think Maher responds favorably to Paul's anti-war stance and his down home kind of honest decency, without really exploring what Paul is all about. I responded the same way, frankly, before i looked into Paul's record a little more closely. The emancipation proclamation, the New Deal, entry into WWII, the G.I. bill, integration, the civil rights act and voting rights act... these are all things Paul's philosophy would oppose. And that's ok with some people, but it ain't ok with me. As for libertarianism, generally, i disagree with Chuck Society isn't just about cooperation. It's about finding a balance between the individual and the collective. I think the current political notions of libertarianism are not really about individualism. They are an assualt on federalism and our existence as a nation. but libertarianism as a philosophy, like existentialism, represents an important counterbalance to our species' natural inclination toward authoritarian collectivism. Yes, it's "adolescent", because its a young person's first attempt to break free of parental (therefore societal) control. But its not something you need to simply "outgrow", but to understand in context of being a responsible member of a society.
|
| metsguyinmichigan Jan 11 2008 10:50 AM |
|
The assistant pastor in my church is Ron Paul's brother. We had no idea until recently. He's just never mentioned that his brother was in Congress.
|
| Benjamin Grimm Jan 11 2008 11:23 AM |
|
He had a fairly decent year at Tidewater in 1970.
|
| martin Jan 11 2008 11:59 AM |
|
|
it depends. presumably some other fella will have his property soiled by your sewage, so no. libertarianism isnt anarchy, dude.
|
| Nymr83 Feb 09 2008 01:05 PM |
|
Paul has announced that he is "shifting his focus" to his re-election campaign in Congress. He says hes still in the presidential race, though I can't imagine why.
|
| sharpie Feb 09 2008 01:16 PM |
|
I guess when running for President you don't need to "focus" too hard.
|
| Nymr83 Feb 09 2008 02:56 PM |
|
at least not when you're all but technically eliminated.
|