Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

LOL – meow you can get so catty when someone catches you out can’t you. I didn’t say you were promoting violence only that your mind seemed to jump to a violent solution rather than a peaceful or rational one.

THANK YOU thank you that’s one of the major problems I see with neoliberal thinking it seems to like to promote unfair or corrupt competition, it seems to want to give advantage to the already advantaged, reducing rather than enhancing competition, just as you see no problem having a 100 metre race with one runner given a 50 metre head start (you would even seem to like to give them a 75 metre head start).

Exactly once more you back up what I’m saying the London Marathon isn’t a competition 99% of the people running the London Marathon do it for charity or personal achievement (or just for fun) not to win it. That’s why you have people dressed up in Rhino armour or as pantomime horses.
I’m 50 years old and had never run a marathon before in my life my goal was to just finish the damn thing not to win it and of course raise money for an environmental charity.

(PS:And actually the woman in question wasn’t even officially a winner she did the course and the distance but only those that cross the line on the day (I believe within 8 hours) officially did the LM.)

 

Letlovin

Thing is what Indie knows but hasn’t told you is that we’ve been through this several times in the last two years or so –

To clarify I’m not talking about inheritance from a will, such legacies can be given to anyone, a charity or even a favoured pet and may even exclude relatives.

No I’m talking about the advantages that come to someone through an accident of birth. And the point being that no one can choose to be born into such a gift, so are they justified in having it when someone else through no fault of their own is born disadvantaged.
Post 279
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=6381653&highlight=Inherit#post6381653

Oh and Indie has never been able to answer the question of justifying unearned advantage in any rational way all he has come up with so far is the completely irrational argument that ‘life isn’t fair’, ‘it’s a fact of life’ and ‘shit happens’

Maybe you can answer it?

 

Indie I could kiss you

Thank you again – basically this is the same irrational ‘Fact of life - life isn’t fair - shit happens’ argument you’ve used before and I’ll give it the same reply

- these are not rational arguments as I’ve pointed out, it doesn’t have to be a fact of life, things don’t have to be so unfair and something could be done to limit the effects of the shit.

What you seem to be saying is you like this being a fact of life you want live to be unfair and you want shit to happen to people who through no fault of their own are born disadvantaged, and I wonder why?
Post 182 Small Government thread
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=19

 

Oh and Indie you excel yourself

Well supposedly its your reasoning (which by you own lips has now been confirmed as a con game).

Your outlook (and argument) seemed to be based on the idea that individuals are responsible for their position in life, that success is the reward for their actions and conversely that lack of success is also the responsibility of the individual. You’ve stated this many times.

So in that outlook advantage (and disadvantage) are justifiable because both are ‘earned’, people deserve to hold onto all their advantages since they earned them all and of course people that are disadvantaged also ‘earned’ that position and are therefore undeserving of much or any help, unless the advantaged want to give it to them.

What I’ve pointed out as a criticism of this view is that it doesn’t stand up if people can gain advantages they didn’t earn. It means that advantage isn’t earned by individual merit it can be just a matter of luck an accident of birth and so that means disadvantage isn’t earned or deserved.

So is it fair or justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

You are saying yes because ‘life’s unfair’ and so nothing can be done about it. But that’s not true because while you seem to be saying nothing can be done to help the disadvantaged you think things should be done to help the advantaged.

You do want to do something you want to make wealth, wealthier and make other peoples lives worse

The ideas you promote (such as those of Ron Paul) would vastly increase the riches, power, influence and advantages of wealth to the detriment of everyone else. You say –

It seems to me that your argument is exactly that a war waged by wealth on the rest of us.

 

It's not fair, no. But I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the question 'is it justifiable?' I don't see how it can be just or unjust. The poor can have kids, the rich can have kids. People have a right to be wealthy, and sadly many people are poor. How can you change this? Take everyone's children and spread them around to different families to equal out the advantages? I don't understand.

 

letlovin

Interesting, you come up with a very similar way ‘of helping’ as Indie when we discussed this before, that is - the forced removal of disadvantaged children from their parents - he also seems to believe in the sterilisation of the poor as well would you also agree to that?

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?postid=6784331

Can right wingers honestly not think of any other way to help the disadvantaged?

*

Ok so are you’re saying that advantages don’t have to be earned?

Ok let’s run a scenario past you – Would you cheer if a corporation gets a contract because they are rich enough to hire lobbyists and contribute to political campaigns, rather than because they are the best tender for the job?

To me this is a matter of what kind of society you want one with something close to a level and honest playfield or one rigged to favour the already advantaged.

 

Bal:

In what way do you see "my" mind jumping to a violent solution? If you read further you might have noticed that felt there was nothing needing a solution as the point of the race was to determine which contestant can run the fastest in that days competition.

 

Bal:

Thank you for what? Pointing out that not all humans have the same abilities? Are you suggesting that all forms of human competition should be eliminated, as being unfair?

 

Bal:

Oh, now I get it, you're attempting to insert the 99% versus the 1% into your argument. Those evil 1% who actually run in the marathon to win, proving they're faster than those disadvantaged 99%.

 

Bal:

Are you having a nervous breakdown?

Individuals are indeed responsible for their lives, while from birth until an age at which they begin to make their own decisions they bear only partial responsibility. e.g. They can refuse to study in school, which is their own decision, and has effect on most all future decisions they will make in life.

Wealth of others, using the term loosely, bothers me not at all, money that others possess. primarily those who have much of it, has been the source of my own advancement during my life.

Wealth, or more to the point, money can be earned, received as a gift, or stolen. Which method most closely resembles governments method of acquiring money? Note: I left out printed, as it does not increase wealth but only raises prices.

 

Bal:

Be honest with 'Letlovin', and refrain from quoting me or others out of context in an attempt to make your argument appear more palatable.

You present nonsensical scenarios in an attempt to widen discussion in order to initiate a response you can manipulate in a derogatory fashion.

In your scenario you do appear to recognize the fact that government IS a problem in that IT attracts lobbyists due to the power it holds over the people. Ron Paul supports smaller government, Constitutional governance, and States rights as stated in the 10th amendment.

Perhaps not in Great Britain, but in the U.S. at least, people still are able to become richer or poorer each day, in spite of the government and those on the Left who view that as unfair or unjust. Why else would poor people from all over the world still try to come live in the U.S.?

 

Indie

Well no I’m enjoying this but I must say your post do seem to be getting a bit huffy.

LOL well your solution was to break one runner’s leg rather than help the other runner get better.

What lets get this straight you’d call a race between someone with a broken leg and someone without, a fair contest? That you’d force this race to take place rather than let the runners leg mend? And then you would think that such a race would definitely show that the uninjured person was the better runner?

Oh dear Indie could you please read the posts - In your system it is like having a race between two runners of equal potential but one has to carry a 100lb sack of potatoes while the other is unencumbered or that one runner is given a 50 meter head start in a 100 meter race.

The London Marathon is not a race between people of potentially the same ability (except for those at the top who don’t run with the ‘mass’ of the runners) I mean some of the worlds top long distance runners and 60 year old grandmothers might be in the same event but they are not in competition with each other.

LOL I wasn’t but now you mention it….

Hells bells Indie do I have to go through all this again – those born into advantage start receiving advantages from the earliest age, for example the very ability for a child to live or have a healthy childhood is linked to advantage and disadvantage. Infant mortality in the US is highest amongst disadvantaged groups and then "In almost every state, shortfalls in health are greatest among children in the poorest or least-educated households, but even middle-class children are less healthy than children with greater advantages. Within each racial or ethnic group, a steep income gradient is evident. Children's general health status improves as family income increases."
Report published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and titled "America's Health Starts With Healthy Children: How do States Compare?"

Can a child decide to be born into the advantage of having a healthier life?

Also on the whole the better educated the parents the better educated will be the child who will then do better at school and find studying more interesting and so get better grades. Advantaged children are better stimulated (they go on more and more education trips) they have more learning tools available, reference books, newspapers, computers, personal tutors etc.

Can a child decide to be born into the advantage of having wealthier and more educated parents?

As I’ve said we have been through all this before you didn’t address it back then you just dismissed it.

I ask again - Is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

 

Bal:

Where did you see me suggesting the breaking of a leg?

 

What's your point Bal? A person that is 7 feet tall has an advantage over me when it comes to playing basketball. Is this justified?

 

Bal:

You continue to twist words into something that was not said or even suggested.
I would think that in the case of a race, where the objective is to win, only those who feel they have a chance would enter. Of course there are numerous other forms of competition for those who lack the requirements to be competitive in a foot race.

What's your purpose in claiming that "I" would force that race to take place rather than wait for the injured runners leg to mend? Most likely the race would be held on the date it was scheduled if there were sufficient uninjured contestants. Perhaps the injured runner will prevail in a future race, just like in life you may be at a disadvantage today, but find you have an advantage tomorrow.

Like myself, my parents were unable to afford sending me to college after finishing high school, and I worked, served in the military, and then worked again before I could on my own afford to pursue a degree. Was I not disadvantaged in your eyes? I never gave it a thought, and just did what I felt necessary to gain the advantages I thought would benefit me most.

I don't really have a system, but in living people do have to try and determine what abilities they possess, and where and how they can best be put to use in a way most beneficial to them.

How do you rationalize the imposition of responsibility for child birth upon society in toto? Or even more pointedly, upon those totally unrelated causally, based only upon their financial ability to fulfill the responsibilities related to bringing a child into the world?

The answer to your question remains a firm "YES", and wouldn't it make more sense reasonably and rationally to educate people that there ARE responsibilities to living and the decisions they make while living? After octo-mom I noticed recently there is a woman in Mexico who is attempting to break her record by bringing 9 lives into the world. Anyone willing to shoot for 10?

 

I could simply say, "no, I am not voting for Ron Paul", but I like to explain why he should not be elected and his ideas in fact would destroy democracy.

 

Curiously wondering how those who oppose Ron Paul define the use of democracy in American government, a Constitutional Republic, I'll anxiously await your explanation.

 

Like you (presumably), I prefer representative government, a republic, rather than direct government such as the ancient Greek city states had.
But there is a democratic component of all republics that requires political equality.
To achieve political equality, a certain degree of economic equality is necessary, the degree of equality being a matter of preference.

 

Beginning with your second sentence, I am uncertain of how to interpret your intended meaning.

 

Libertarians do not understand the consequences of their actions and you demonstrate that by your question. This is what makes it such a dangerous movement.

The lack of regulation of commerce they seek will allow lawsuits to be awarded to the highest bidder, political office to the highest bidder, and educational opportunities denied to all but those who can afford it.

Only by having economic equality will all citizens have equal access to their government.

Libertarians talk about the liberty they would have, but it is just a step in the path toward an oligarchy. Most Americans would be left out in the cold in a dictatorship by corporate America.