Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

As explained before if I give a concise question you call it simplistic and demand explanation and if I give explanation you call it too broad and vague and ask for concise.

The result is always the same you not answering.

What illegitimate premise?

Oh dear this again – as pointed out before you say this but whenever I ask you for your proof you can’t give it.

You tell me to read your posts, but I have and that’s why I can tell you what you’ve said and when, but I have not seen your supposed rational and reasonable defence so please produce it.

People are entitled to earn what they can, and use it however they wish.

But also you admit people can receive advantages they didn’t earn.

It is not governments responsibility or duty to take and redistribute the property of the citizens, but only to ensure that they and their possession legally obtained are protected from criminal elements, including the government.

We’ve been through this many times you are not an anarchist you still want government and you still think government should be able to raise taxes.

People will help people, and that is what makes a society work, government be damned.

We have been through this also many times both with the deserving/undeserving argument and that people fought for decent public provision because private provision (coloured by the deserving/undeserving argument was not enough)

 

Indie

It is like a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population* But nobody knows which half.

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they might not go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

Whose blaming and whose trying to find a solution?

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own suffer or even die from want

 

Indie

You said - If the money someone has was obtained legally, earned through work, investment, a gift, or inheritance…..

You said earned – but as I ask in what way can a child ‘earn’ to be born into advantage? Did a child born into advantage ‘earned’ those advantage through is own work? Can a child ‘earn’ to be born into the gift of advantage?

So it would be completely fair and acceptable in you view if the disadvantaged received advantages they did not earn as long as that was legal. You have no rational argument why they shouldn’t receive such assistance.

Given what you said yes they are rational. But let’s look again in the light of your argument that unearned advantage is fine.

In what way can a child ‘earn’ to be born into advantage? It doesn’t but it doesn’t have to have earned it, and if a disadvantaged child receives assistance from state social programmes that’s ok too.

Did a child born into advantage ‘earn’ those advantages through is own work? No but it doesn’t have to just as a disadvantaged child doesn’t have to have worked itself for any assistance it receives from state social programmes.

Can a child ‘earn’ to be born into the gift of advantage? Again no - just as a disadvantaged child doesn’t have to earn any assistance it receives from state social programmes.

Post 38 Question About Operation of Small Government thread

You say in relation to this subject that “Life isn't fair”

Therefore admitting it to be unfair.

LOL I think you need to read more carefully I will repeat – your opinions don’t seem legally based they seem to be your viewpoint - I mean you seem to oppose what is presently legal and have suggested a changes to the present legal framework. If you are arguing that whatever is legal must be ‘right’ and ‘justified’ you shouldn’t be opposing or suggesting changes. I mean you seem to be trying to hide your inability to rationally defend your ideas behind a legal smokescreen suggesting that somehow your views would be different if the laws were different.

Also as pointed out before legal doesn’t make something justified or right, I mean slavery and child labour were once legal.

We have been through this many times in relation to the US your view doesn’t seem to be supported by many studies on the subject. But you dismiss any study preferring to base you view on…well on….well on what you think you know to be right.

And as also explained I would try and help people to fulfil their potential your ideas are more likely to stifle such potential.

 

Letlovin

Oh please LOL just more evasion tricks, do please tell what words and ideas I’m supposed to have put in your mouth.

And come on I’ve happily answered your questions and if I’ve missed any I’ll be happy to do them also if you tell me where they are, but that is a two way street are you going to answer my questions (maybe the one I asked you EIGHT times and you refused to answer?).

I mean there is the Social Darwinist issues you have so far refused to address.

What about the thing about genetic luck?

Can pre-born babies gamble on being born advantaged?

I could go on and on and on…..

Since so many criticisms are outstanding you’ll need to be more specific.

LOL yep Indie tried that evasion as well – to repeat it is not about slavery or child labour it is about an attitude that would have accepted slavery and child labour, think about it and you will see there is a difference.

The ‘life’s unfair’ argument you are putting forward to seemingly defend your views would also have allowed and accepted slavery and child labour as also being justified and right.

Again you seem to be thinking in simplistic black and white terms, please try to stop do that and you might escape from your closed minded world view.

It is not rich vs poor like in some boxing match - it is about doing what is best for everyone in a society. My goal would be to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential

You’ve brought up the maintaining liberty thing again can you explain your thinking?

I mean my views on how to improve things are littered throughout my posts but if I’m to understand your question I need to understand this ‘liberty’ angle.

 

My appologies. I'll be more careful next time.

 

Cool.

Well for the sake of clearing up EXACTLY what I do think needs to be done..... I think we should all agree on most of these, and I think that america has been fucked by political differences like ours, and meanwhile there's two really shitty parties in control, and they do the SAME THINGS, while saying different things about stuff like abortion or gay marriage or whatever, but they still both band together to fuck us, while pretending to be bitter enemies. We need to start with the things we can agree on, and worry about the rest later.

Number one, we need to get RID of fractional reserve banking, or at the least, reverse the fraction required by law in the US-we could say you need 80% cash reserves.

Eleminate the fed-congress must choose to change the amount of money, at least that way they can be voted out for how they do it.

Pull back worldwide military bases and limit transactions that take advantage of currency exchange rates and don't allow those with the money for offshore banking to ALSO avoid taxes-at the least if we pay taxes, they shouldn't be able to pay NONE. We need to stop playing global politics, we can't even handle our own politics.

Eleminate money from politics, daylight lobbying for all to see. Work to actually get people involved in politics, from local to federal, it's better to have them know what's going on, than have no clue.

While I think many things like OSHA and the FDA are needed, I think they need their missions restructured. For one thing, we should have NO DEA, the FDA is the absolute closest to that that should exist. They need to all be rebuilt around people and keeping people safe with no extra bullshit or corporate presence.

We obviously need civil liberties strongly affirmed, our current government doesn't give a shit. Rising police force and presence needs to be checked, while crime could be strongly reduced, by not making things that should be totally legal illegal. There should not be a private prison industry, it is a very dangerous step to have corporations locking people up for you-the government should be doing it's own dirty work.

I think we need open borders, for PEOPLE, but not so much for goods, I think import tariffs are good, export tariffs are bad. The current situation is not making america more safe, but is HURTING THE ECONOMY, and is making us less safe as a country as we outsource our balls and lose economic independence. If there's a market at home, and we make it less profitable to supply cheap shit from china, we can bring the supply industry back home.

And maybe most importantly, the american tax code needs to be clear and understandable. Right now it is clearly fraud, simply because it takes a lawyer, or team of lawyers, to understand it. The whole tax code should fit in a booklet like a state driver's handbook, and that should cover everything from personal income to coprorate, to bank rules and regulations. If things are simple, at least we can have an honest debate. As it is, I have no clue what the tax code says, and neither do any of you, unless you're tax lawyers, the thing's thousands of pages long! We shouldn't have to use charts made with various assumptions to debate this, we should be able to quote from a simple and clear document or table.

If you'd prefer it, indie, I'd be fine with putting tax money into public works, or programs that would help the same disadvantaged kids, without rewarding their parents for being worthless.

I agree with what I've seen ron paul say he'd do in the first year, but in the longer run, I think he'd decimate the country. But my answer has changed, I guess I'm just a flip flopper..... but obama has pissed me off in waves, and if ron paul was really on the ballot, I would vote for him-as it is, I will vote for the lesser evil, and that will be obama, I do NOT like a thing about mr. etch-a-sketch. Obama may be all talk, but mitt talks out his ass.

As for why I'd vote for ron paul at the moment, next to my post is a photo of exhibit one..... Absolute proof that obama does not even take himself seriously.

 

Bal,

Surely if there was something mind changing to be found in any of the Left wing propaganda you suggest to be read, you would have already presented it. Reading Marx did not produce a desire to move to the Left, so what is it that you feel Susan Jacoby has written that might? Okay, she's an atheist, so am I but that's about the extent of our agreement in the area of religion. Even if you accept the numbers and percentages quoted to be facts relative to the beliefs of American adults, are we to assume that those persons the numbers represent are the ones who disagree with your views? There are likely just as many, if not more, stupid Liberals as there are stupid Conservatives.

You continually attempt to categorize people based upon a narrow interpretation of something they have written in order to denigrate them based upon a wider interpretation of the category in which you have placed them. You appear to believe that birth produces an entitlement which government is obligated to fulfill by distributing the responsibility to those who will not shirk their own responsibilities.

 

Good post!

Anyone wanna take a stab at predicting Blabby's response (to Indi's post or mine)? Should be easy enough, I think.

LOL

 

As a result, the 'corporate person' receives legislative representation while the 'individual' receives no representation. Do you really believe you as an 'individual' have the legislative pen at your command as the 'corporate person' does?

Maybe it's me, but isn't that the opposite of what you just said?

Do you mean like how the corporate person has purchased the means to distribute the acquisitions by their constitutional "right" of representation to the detriment of the individual?

Note: I don't believe the corporate person has a constitutional right; the corporate person is illegitimate.

If you were a politician with limited time (because they are very busy people) who would you represent?

A) The Money Maker (or corporate person)
B) The Pauper (the person person)

We know what every politician (except Ron Paul) would choose.

 

Not answering the rest of your post, we clearly will not agree, even on what is happening, much less what should, but, I think it should be noted that anyone who's a conservative or a liberal is pretty slow in the head.

Conservative means you want to change nothing..... indie, you're obviously not conservative. Liberal means you just don't care, and want to change stuff willy-nilly.

Progressive is what it soulds like..... we need to progress, to fix what is broken and improve what can be improved. Exactly what the worthy causes for each are, is the subject of debate.

 

As a result of what? That's where your answer is to be found.

[/QUOTE]

 

Time to rewrite our dictionaries once again?

I could care less how you personally define words, and while Progressive may provide cover for what is being promoted to be good and necessary, it seldom appears to produce the results which improve anything while only increasing our debt.

The debate in this thread seems to have been "Would you vote for Ron Paul" originally.

I'm not sure we could find agreement on what we perceive to be broken.
It would appear that most everything discussed is constantly reduced to an issue of being the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie.

 

Quote is from a different thread, but I like it, its excellent and not offensive, > probably will be borrowing it once awhile
JJ -

 

Feel free to do so.

 

56

But what is good about it?

I mean he still isn’t answering the questions put to him or addressing the criticisms levelled at him so what do you believe is good about it.

Now normally I just ignore such pointless cheering as yours since its pointless but then I though why is this person doing it, what do they actually think is so good about Indies constant evasion. So for once I thought I’d call you out see if you can actually contribute to the debate beyond sycophantic heckling?

Also I notice you didn’t actually predict my reply that would have been impressive – but instead you use the rather pathetic trick of pretending you could predict it - it means you can claim anything I say as being right. Next time actually put you money where your mouth is and actually do the prediction.

 

Indie

LOL – I believe you’ve said you don’t read anything I’ve presented not even many of the pieces I link to. But as I’ve said before just ignoring an argument doesn’t mean it goes away.

But remember I’m not trying to change your mind I’m trying to work out why you hold views that you seem incapable of defending in any rational or reasonable way.

I don’t believe I’ve suggested you read Marx. And if you think Marx is the fountainhead of all left wing thought you really need to do a bit more research. I mean I’ve meet lefties that have never read anything by Marx or the other leading communistic thinkers.

But again this seems to imply that you seem to see anything to the left of your own rather extreme right wing views as Marxist/Communist.

And to repeat I’m not bothered with ‘converting’ you but just presenting a view on American that was relevant in a discussion on US education. That’s what you do in debate.

I’d make no such judgement one way or the other but there was an amusing study -

Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study - Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html#ixzz1xaPs64VT

Oh Indie you’re a hoot, I mean I’ve been discussing things with you for about two years, but I can only work with what I’m given, you often make statements that you refuse to explain, refuse to answer questions on or to address any criticisms of it in any rational or reasonable way.

I’ve tried to explore many of your views more fully but you seem unwilling to do so.

If you were willing to debate in an open and honest way it would make things a lot easier.

 

Indie

Can you explain this more thoroughly, I mean you seem to categorize me based upon a narrow interpretation of something I’ve written in order to denigrate the viewpoint based upon a wider interpretation of the category in which you have placed it.

*

It seems to me that a child cannot choose to be born or not, they are born.

My view is that the best way to tackle the problem of disadvantaged children is through social assistance (e.g. education and healthcare) to reduce the number of unwanted children or children born into difficult circumstances and when they are born to help them out of such situations. But it isn’t just about the disadvantaged but about doing what is best for everyone in a society.

To me the things you seem to have suggested to tackle disadvantage seem authoritarian - I mean you have suggested that government should step in to remove the children of the disadvantaged and that those deemed as being at risk of producing disadvantaged children should be sterilised against their will.

You also go further and admit that in your model of society you’d be happy for disadvantaged people who through no fault of their own have fallen into hardship to die of want.

As I’ve repeated many times to me it seems to be a matter of goals. My goal is to try and make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair and authoritarian society controlled in the interests of wealth where the potential of the all other groups are stifled. A place where as I’ve said you would happily let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own suffer or even die from want.

 

The thing about debate is that it is meant to be a progression –

Someone presents an idea or makes a statement

Someone else asks questions or makes criticisms

The presenter (or someone with similar views) answers the questions and addresses the criticisms

Those answers and replies are then looked at and other questions and criticisms are made.

And so on

It is like stress testing in engineering, testing something to destruction to see if it is fit for purpose. If it is too weak then the design is adapted or scrapped all together.

The problem I have with right wing libertarianism (as seen in this thread) is that it doesn’t seem to get beyond the first level of criticism.

The ideas don’t seem able to stand up to even mild scrutiny it’s like a bridge that collapses on the first footstep, it isn’t fit for purpose.

It is for that reason that I think right wing libertarians like Ron Paul should not be supported.

 

The code of society does not have to be unfair. Society is a human construct. Fairness could be written into the code of society through the laws that govern that society. A fair society would not necessarily preclude parents from placing their children in a favorable spot through hard work and sacrifice.

The desired outcome of 'fairness' being written into the code of society would be to reduce extreme inequality. Extreme inequality produces an unstable society. A fair society is a sustainable society.

 

Outthere2

Exactly. To me the problem with a lot of right wing, free market and neoliberal thinking is that it seem to take the flawed Social Darwinist route of trying to impose some type of evolutionary ‘natural selection’ onto un-natural human constructs.

And for that reason many of their ideas just don’t stand up to scrutiny when examined.