Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Been here before

Here is something from 11-04-2011, Post 44 and it wasn’t the first time

Indie - Most all of human progress has been a result of individuals who were more equal than most others, and as a result all of society has benefited greatly.

My reply - Hell we’ve been here before as well - Here you are in the How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty? Thread - your post 207 and my reply
Quote:
The automobile, light bulb, diesel engine, corn planter, zipper, refrigerator, radio, television, transistor, airplane, tractor, bakelite, celophane, etc.
The innovations have all originated with individuals, and although government may have funded some advancements it is individuals or groups of individuals who are the creationists.

As with a lot of your thinking you take a simplistic approach.
Lets just pick one of your examples - the first one – automobiles.

This was a development going all the way back to the age of steam rather than a single person’s creation.

No one stepped forward and designed a Bugatti Veyron from scratch, no one person created all the parts and components that make a up an automobile, wheels, tires, pistons, gears, etc were all in existence already.

Yes some people got the patents for things first, but the elements were already in existence and a number of people were working on putting them together.

But then what are cars without roads? And as I’ve already pointed out (I do wish you’d read my posts) – “Then there are the big infrastructural projects financed by government, the transcontinental railroad, the road network, the dams etc”
The thing is that most roads are public works along with the bridges, traffic control systems etc.

I mean Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 has often been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History".
*
Quote:
Most all of human progress has been a result of individuals who were more equal than most others, and as a result all of society has benefited greatly.

Individuals are products of their society, remove an individual from all contact with any society (language, writing all and any education etc) and the result is a human beast that can contribute little.

I mean what is ‘more equal’ and how do you gauge that superiority?

Because they contribute to society or because they have wealth, because you seem to trying to reward wealth irrespective of contribution while trying to stifle the potential of many that could contribute.

Your stance just doesn’t seem logical or reasonable.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=437330&page=5

 

Indie

Oh Indie we’ve been through this before as well – this is your problem with only seeing outcomes and falling back on the deserving/undeserving argument.

Being born into advantage and disadvantage normally has a great impact on that person’s life, you say it hasn’t but have put up no rational argument for you belief other that that’s what you think. I have explained often that the impact is great because it can effect a child's whole life from the education they receive not just formally but the type of environmental education that begins soon after birth, it can effect their health, the kind of social contact they have and so on and so on.

Rather than acknowledge this structural impact you seem to fall back on your Social Darwinist ‘fittest’ approach – the belief that it is only the ‘fittest’ that have or gain advantages and so if people are in disadvantaged position its because they are not ‘fit’ enough.

As with the 100 metre race metaphor - you praise the winner of a race and call him the better runner without noticing he had a fifty metre head start over the other runner.

You then seem to sneer at the loser and say his complains at the fixed race are just excuses for his own unworthiness.

 

Indie

LOL – ok I’m game - can you actually point out where you have presented any rational and reasonable arguments? Oh and just to remind you ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘shit happens’ and ‘that’s not what I think’ are not rational and reasonable arguments.

 

Indie

I’m getting a great deal of value out of our discussions, often it is not what people say but what they don’t say that’s important, even a dishonest debater like yourself, who does everything they can to derail, evade, misdirect etc gives away a lot of information. And sorry but as long as you stay around I’m going to mine you for all the information I can, because you are to me a gold mine.

 

To repeat

For me the question in – Would YOU vote for Ron Paul – is why, why would you vote for ideas and policies that in my opinion would make a bad situation worse?

I mean take this thread for example in all these pages none of the supporters of right wing libertarian leaning idea has been able to defend them from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

They say they can then only produce evasion, they claim they have but then can’t produce any evidence and they say they will but that always seem to be tomorrow, tomorrow.

I’ll repeat if ideas can’t be defend from criticisms that seem to show them to be flawed (sometimes mortally) then those are most likely to be bad ideas.

 

Roo,

It's not horrifying, but simply demonstrates a profound lack of comprehension, yet to be determined intentional or unintentional, in your case.

 

^ Once again you fail to comprehend or even identify the source of corruption.

You never addressed my questions either. You just go on about some yankee doodle dandy constitution nonsense.

 

Bal,

If you feel the economic situation of the developed world to be inadequate in refuting you ideas, then I'm afraid the only thing which will suffice is total collapse, but even then I'm certain you will try to find a way to ignore the true causation.

As you note, we have been through all this numerous times, and asking the same questions over and over simply results in the same or very similar answers which you only look to find ways to misinterpret. Therefore I would suggest that instead of asking the same questions, simply go back a read the answers given previously.

I'm sure you must know that I would much prefer to cast a vote 'for' Ron Paul rather than simply cast a vote against Obama, and although you are entitled to your opinion, I think that most of us who are supportive of Ron Paul don't see him as an authoritarian figure, but one who strongly supports the Constitution and the form of government it describes as being what the people are entitled to.

As long as you refuse to accept anything in opposition to your own views, I think the only means of providing proof in an undeniable form for your acceptance would be to install a government in which a majority of all 3 branches accept and uphold the Constitution as they swear an oath to do.

There's much more to do than simply elect Democrats or Republicans, neither party has proven a desire to bring about the needed changes.

 

That would be a large number of the politicians voters allow to serve based primarily on how much bacon they can bring home, and of course the political parties who tend to ignore the people in providing them with candidates for office that the people can support, and will in turn listen to and represent those whose votes rather than contributions allow them to serve.

 

Indie

I’m not sure what you are going on about here how am I ‘refuting my ideas’? What ‘true causation’ are you talking about?

If I misinterpret then correct me – the problem is that you’ve accused me of misinterpretation before but when I ask for an example you either can’t produce one or you point to something that doesn’t seem to have been misinterpreted.

But as pointed out rational or reasonable replies don’t seem to be there (Indie this is me the one that knows your posts and quotes them regularly) and what’s more you don’t seem able to point them out either.

Yeah, yeah nice campaign speech - but the problem is that you don’t seem capable of defending right wing libertarian ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them. So I’ll ask again why do you seem to be holding onto ideas that you seem unable to defend in any rational or reasonable way?

What ‘proof’ are you going on about? The only reason I don’t accept your ideas is that they don’t seem to stand up to even the mildest scrutiny, as I’ve said before if ideas can’t be defended from criticism then they’re probably bad ideas.

But what changes are needed, that is the question, I think the kind of changes you’d bring in would make a bad situation worse a charge you seem unable to refute.

 

Bal,

At least we seem to agree that the situation is bad, just can't agree on what needs to be changed to make the situation better.

 

Indie

LOL – and more evasion – we agreed that the situation was bad about two years ago around the time that we realised we don’t agree on what needs to be changed to make things better.

Hey I’ve got a radical idea rather than evasions why not address all those outstanding criticisms of your ideas?

 

I'm voting for obama. I don't like the Republican candidates this year at all. They just seem like they could fuck shit up like Bush. (II)

 

Bal,

Been there, done that.

 

Indie

LOL – can you actually point out where you have presented any rational and reasonable arguments? Oh and just to remind you ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘shit happens’ and ‘that’s not what I think’ are not rational and reasonable arguments.

 

Bal,

More often than not, with the sole exception of "the situation is bad" you present what you seem to feel is worth time arguing over, when the premise you use is inapplicable in all the cases in which you attempt to impose it.

Even where we seem to agree somewhat, "the situation is bad", it is probable that we would quickly find that we would disagree completely in how we each would define what is bad about the situation.

If you failed to grasp anything close to the facts from what I had posted previously, then I can only conclude that the facts have little relevance to the views you hold.

You seem to view the solution to each and every problem lies in government spending money which can only be taken from those you feel possess it unjustly and unfairly, and/or to borrow it with little care or intent given to repaying it.

It's the kids, or those who of no fault of their own, is an emotional ploy which I find lacking as a rational or reasonable premise.

 

Indie

I’m really unsure of what you are trying to say can you try and clarify?

Yes that is obvious, but as I’ve pointed out you often seem unable to explain why you think the way you do or defend your ideas from criticism. I’m happy to explain my ideas and will and have defended my ideas from your criticism.

I’ll ask again what ‘facts’ are you talking about, you’ve talked of them before but you never ever seem able to actually produce them.

Try reading – utopia no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

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.

But for a fairer and better society to exist there has to be some balance, between the interests of the few and the many and between the individual and the community, between wealth and the majority - it is about raising the quality of life of all.

Your goals seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place (as you have said openly) where those that are deem as having little value to society should be left to suffer or even die of want.

 

Bal,

I don't see where any further need for clarification is needed.

I think you should easily be able to see that the answer of why I think the way I do lies in our Constitution, government requiring the consent of the governed.

While you may claim your goal to be "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", your methods are to impose upon the governed with little or no regard for consent from those you make use of to achieve your goals which are little more than redistribution.

 

Well said, Balbus! Democracy cannot fully exist without social justice and that includes economic justice.

Ron Paul and Romney are just pawns in the power brokers' game to control Americans. They are powerful, but not as powerful as the American people... once they wake up

 

if he were running against romney i'd vote for ron paul. i'd vote for rou paul too.