Ron Paul, a lost cause...

[big_lefty]

Quote by: another day how outlandish! This is like me saying you "AUTHORITARIANS" want to round everybody up and shoot them for not wearing the right color tie to work. Ridiculous over exaggeration never gets you anywhere in a debate. Here's a place for you to start, look up the definitions of "anarchy" and "libertarianism", and report back to me with the differences.

The poster was using a bit of hyperbole to make a point, but I thought that was still a pretty accurate summing up of the Libertarian mindset.
Isn't it about individual liberty about all else, even sometimes at the expense of others?
Isn't it about minimizing government, even at the expense of pragmatism in some cases, in order to defend the ideal of individual freedom as supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution?

That's why a lot of people don't take it seriously. It's simplistic, naive, inflexible, and does not make enough allowances for practical realities.
But still, the basic idea is worth defending. It just needs some refining to recognize the value of pragmatism and the hierarchy of rights. Some rights are arguably more important than others. For example, as is the case with smoking, my right not to be exposed to toxins is more important than your freedom to expel them in public.
The gun question is more complicated, however, since there is no clearcut demonstration of inherent social harm from unregulated gun ownership.

Personal freedom is important, but not sacrosanct. It's not more important than human rights or the need to keep peace and protect the public from harm.
Libertarians, unfortunately, will always be a laughing stock until they recognize that.

I just realized that came off as a parent lecturing a child. Sorry. Force of habit after nagging my lazy teenage daughter all day. ;-)

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: big_lefty The poster was using a bit of hyperbole to make a point, but I thought that was still a pretty accurate summing up of the Libertarian mindset. Isn't it about individual liberty about all else, even sometimes at the expense of others? Isn't it about minimizing government, even at the expense of pragmatism in some cases, in order to defend the ideal of individual freedom as supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution?

So what examples of that far reaching contention can you provide?

Quote by: big_lefty That's why a lot of people don't take it seriously. It's simplistic, naive, inflexible, and does not make enough allowances for practical realities.

I think it has more to do with the marginalization it suffers in the media, and by people opining who clearly operate on a misunderstanding.

Quote by: big_lefty But still, the basic idea is worth defending. It just needs some refining to recognize the value of pragmatism and the hierarchy of rights. Some rights are arguably more important than others. For example, as is the case with smoking, my right not to be exposed to toxins is more important than your freedom to expel them in public.

Ah, but should you right not to be harmed extend onto other peoples property, in effect trumping property rights?

Quote by: big_lefty The gun question is more complicated, however, since there is no clearcut demonstration of inherent social harm from unregulated gun ownership.

I maintain that the ills of disarming are greater the the benefits.

Quote by: big_lefty Personal freedom is important, but not sacrosanct. It's not more important than human rights or the need to keep peace and protect the public from harm.

Wrong, that is not our governments charter.

Quote by: big_lefty Libertarians, unfortunately, will always be a laughing stock until they recognize that. I just realized that came off as a parent lecturing a child. Sorry. Force of habit after nagging my lazy teenage daughter all day. ;-)

I hope you're a little more tactful when she ends up proving you wrong as well.

[big_lefty]

So what examples of that far reaching contention can you provide?

Here you go. I don't know why you'd deny it.

"Truthfully, there may be several definitions of the term, but in general, libertarianism encompasses all or most of the following: strong support of individual civil liberties, social tolerance, and private property; belief in the positive powers of the free market; and an espousal of constitutionally limited and greatly reduced government. To put it succinctly, the libertarian believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives as they see fit, as long as they cause no harm to others, with minimal governmental interference."

What is a Libertarian: the party & philosophy

"The libertarian believes that the government that governs least, governs best. He believes in maximum personal liberty and minimum government coercion and intrusion in the everyday lives of citizens. The libertarian believes in small government, especially at the federal level, and not getting involved in foreign entanglements. He believes in personal autonomy, both social and economic."

WikiAnswers - What are the core beliefs of a libertarian

I think it has more to do with the marginalization it suffers in the media, and by people opining who clearly operate on a misunderstanding.

Could be.

Ah, but should you right not to be harmed extend onto other peoples property, in effect trumping property rights?

No, it should not, as long as said property isn't being offered for public use, as in the case of a restaurant.

I maintain that the ills of disarming are greater the the benefits.

I'd be interested in why.

Wrong, that is not our governments charter.

I'm not claiming it is. I'm claiming it's the general purpose of laws which may be seen by some as intrusive. If indeed those laws do not protect citizens, safeguard their rights, or keep peace and order, they are needlessly intrusive and should be abandoned.

I hope you're a little more tactful when she ends up proving you wrong as well.

I make a point of not being wrong very often. :-)

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: big_lefty Here you go. I don't know why you'd deny it. "Truthfully, there may be several definitions of the term, but in general, libertarianism encompasses all or most of the following: strong support of individual civil liberties, social tolerance, and private property; belief in the positive powers of the free market; and an espousal of constitutionally limited and greatly reduced government. To put it succinctly, the libertarian believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives as they see fit, as long as they cause no harm to others, with minimal governmental interference." What is a Libertarian: the party & philosophy "The libertarian believes that the government that governs least, governs best. He believes in maximum personal liberty and minimum government coercion and intrusion in the everyday lives of citizens. The libertarian believes in small government, especially at the federal level, and not getting involved in foreign entanglements. He believes in personal autonomy, both social and economic." WikiAnswers - What are the core beliefs of a libertarian

Are you somehow able to edit after I post? Because I swear that is not exactly what I was respondind to.

Quote by: big_lefty No, it should not, as long as said property isn't being offered for public use, as in the case of a restaurant.

If the philosophy trumps property rights, then precedent is set, and the whole philosophy behind the original laws come toppling down, and not not ready to permit such a thing.

Quote by: big_lefty I'd be interested in why.

Oh, the experiences of people like Ghandi, the Indians, and the Native Americans.

[big_lefty]

Are you somehow able to edit after I post? Because I swear that is not exactly what I was respondind to.

You'll have to explain what you were looking for if you want an answer. I can't read your mind.

If the philosophy trumps property rights, then precedent is set, and the whole philosophy behind the original laws come toppling down, and not not ready to permit such a thing.

Slippery Slope fallacy. No sale.

Oh, the experiences of people like Ghandi, the Indians, and the Native Americans

.

That doesn't really answer my question, but if you don't want to answer, that's fine.

[another day]

Quote by: big_lefty For example, as is the case with smoking, my right not to be exposed to toxins is more important than your freedom to expel them in public.

Too right. Unfortunately, leftists seem to define a privately owned bar/restaurant as "public", and think they have an inalienable right to go to whichever restaurant they choose without being submitted to smoking. The leftists practically extend the domain of the government onto everything and everyone. That is the fatal mistake.

In the end, it comes down to those who would like a world like "brave new world" where "everyone belongs to everyone else", and those who don't.

I'll admit that both sides contain nothing that rationality can't argue for or against. It's merely personal preference. Yet I'll fight for my side the best I can because I believe it is most fair and human.

I'd rather be subjected to the natural, indirect sway of free market capitalism then to the direct command of government control. The former is much easier to resist if you choose.

It should be noted that I difer from most libertarians on the issue of taxes, and thus would probably be judged by them as non-libertarian. I believe money, as an invention and product of the state, is not as subject to the same rights. I believe in welfare and socialist health care (albeit very, very reformed to provide for only those actually in need)... I have no problem with having some of my income taxed for those purposes. I will inevitably use health care at some point, and am compassionate enough to give up some income for those in need with disabilities and caught in the poverty cycle. But as it stands the system is completely broken and taxes are going to the most ridiculous things, like the WAR IN IRAQ.

[big_lefty]

Too right. Unfortunately, leftists seem to define a privately owned bar/restaurant as "public", and think they have an inalienable right to go to whichever restaurant they choose without being submitted to smoking. The leftists practically extend the domain of the government onto everything and everyone. That is the fatal mistake.

You mean anti-smoking advocates, not leftists. The two are not synonyms. I'm a leftist and I have moderate views about smoking laws.

The flaw in your reasoning is that any privately owned space open to the public is already subject to public health and safety regulations, so precedent is set. Why should smoking not be included in them?
In the days before non-smoking bylaws, there ~were~ no smoke free places. So non-smokers had no choice but to be exposed. As it is now, smokers may still smoke on the street and in specially designated smoking areas. They have choices.
It's a complicated issue because of the health aspect.

In the end, it comes down to those who would like a world like "brave new world" where "everyone belongs to everyone else", and those who don't.

That's a bit hyperbolic. Some government intervention in these matters is needed, as you last comment allows. Allowing for that does not make one an authoritarian or an extreme collectivist.

I'll admit that both sides contain nothing that rationality can't argue for or against. It's merely personal preference. Yet I'll fight for my side the best I can because I believe it is most fair and human.

No problem there.

I'd rather be subjected to the natural, indirect sway of free market capitalism then to the direct command of government control. The former is much easier to resist if you choose.

It is easy to resist only if you have the means. Not everyone does.

It should be noted that I difer from most libertarians on the issue of taxes, and thus would probably be judged by them as non-libertarian. I believe money, as an invention and product of the state, is not as subject to the same rights. I believe in welfare and socialist health care (albeit very, very reformed to provide for only those actually in need)... I have no problem with having some of my income taxed for those purposes. I will inevitably use health care at some point, and am compassionate enough to give up some income for those in need with disabilities and caught in the poverty cycle. But as it stands the system is completely broken and taxes are going to the most ridiculous things, like the WAR IN IRAQ.

I agree with all that. You're a moderate, reasonable libertarian, the very best kind.
Political extremism is avoided by reasonable people. :-)

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Whatssnew Why is that there are people still out running around waving Ron Paul signs? He never had a chance, and still doesn't have a chance. So why is he still in the race? Also why is he such a big issue, Gravel from the Democrats is still running yet I never hear about him. Whats the deal???

You make an interesting point. Gravel used to be a democrat. I would classify both Gravel and Paul as classical liberals running for different parties. If I were you, I would look into the history of classical liberalism.

I do not know why Gravel did not garner as much spotlight as Paul. I agree with both Gravel and Paul on many issues. As for Paul, the man did me a great service by becoming a scholar of classical liberalism, the Constitution, the issue between State and Federal rights.

I do not agree with him on his economic policies. I think it is feasible to eliminate the IRS, but not in the first week. I do not agree with abolishing the FED and relying on a gold standard.

What I do believe in, is individual responsibility and smaller government. That is what Paul stands for. It makes my happy that some other Americans stand for this also.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Voluntary You make an interesting point. Gravel used to be a democrat. I would classify both Gravel and Paul as classical liberals running for different parties. If I were you, I would look into the history of classical liberalism.

Ron Paul liberal? You need to take a better look at RP before you call him liberal are like Gravel. He is conservative on the border, against global warming regulations, against most business regulations, against the income tax, against welfare, against pork barrel spending, wants to lower taxation, pro-life, against foreign aid etc. He is conservative by every stretch of the imagination. The only way he is liberal is the fact that he wants pull out of Iraq and reduce military spending.

I do not know why Gravel did not garner as much spotlight as Paul.

He had a lot of support by the 9/11 truthers. A small, but very vocal group. Funny thing is that most are these jokers are liberals, but they really didn't know what RP stood for. Rather all they heard was he called for an immediate pull out of Iraq. RP also raised a ton of cash.

I agree with both Gravel and Paul on many issues. As for Paul, the man did me a great service by becoming a scholar of classical liberalism, the Constitution, the issue between State and Federal rights

.
Classic liberalism? LOL, liberals like to ignore the constitution and like a bigger Federal government and larger Federal government all the way around. RP has very little in common with liberalism.

I do not agree with him on his economic policies. I think it is feasible to eliminate the IRS, but not in the first week. I do not agree with abolishing the FED and relying on a gold standard.

Both are not liberal ideologies. Eliminating the IRS would be best done by the fair tax!

Not sure about the gold standard either.

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 Ron Paul liberal? You need to take a better look at RP before you call him liberal are like Gravel.

Well, some people even cal McCain a liberal -- so it'a hard to even know what that term means anymore. In fact, I've been called a "conservative" before, for whatever reason.

Grandpa h.

[GHook93]

Quote by: grandpa Well, some people even cal McCain a liberal -- so it'a hard to even know what that term means anymore. In fact, I've been called a "conservative" before, for whatever reason. Grandpa h.

Would anarchy be the ultimate of the conservative "right wing" perspective? The end of all government, no regulations, no taxation, no government interference?

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 Would anarchy be the ultimate of the conservative "right wing" perspective? The end of all government, no regulations, no taxation, no government interference?

It's true that I no longer want to pay taxes or submit to controls to help anyone else, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't want a free social framework to help anyone else. It's just that currently we have "government inreference," largely in response to the capitalist persepective in general. It simply makes sense to have some kind of popular defense against capitalists. I guess my refusal to pander to the rich and to money is what makes me less "conservative."

Grandpa h.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: GHook93 Would anarchy be the ultimate of the conservative "right wing" perspective? The end of all government, no regulations, no taxation, no government interference?

Yep. Economic individualism, taken to the ultimate extreme, is indeed anarchy.
Social conservatism, OTOH, requires a great deal of government intrusion into matters that truly are none of the government's concern.

I don't know how the individualists and the conservatives manage to support the same party. How can the more libertarian minded Republicans stand to be associated with the social conservatives, I wonder.

[GHook93]

Who is the fattest Pig- Meaning Biggest Wasteful Pork Barrel Spender?

276 House of Representatives that spend less on Wasteful Pork Barrel Projects, including 4 presidential candidates. He preached against McCain and that spending is out of control, yet McCain spend literally $0 on pork projects and Paul spend $22 million. If he did what he preaches then that number would be $0.

[GHook93]

Quote by: big_lefty Yep. Economic individualism, taken to the ultimate extreme, is indeed anarchy. Social conservatism, OTOH, requires a great deal of government intrusion into matters that truly are none of the government's concern.

True, fiscal conservatism taken too far is very dangerous, but I still perfer to be right of center on fiscal issues.

I don't know how the individualists and the conservatives manage to support the same party. How can the more libertarian minded Republicans stand to be associated with the social conservatives, I wonder.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. I believe gays should have the right to marry and F#%K eachother in peace, I am pro-abortion (although I won't want any of my children aborted), I am for medical marijuana, actually I support the legalization of all drugs, I support legal prostitution etc.

However, I am driven more by fiscal conservatisim, anti illegal immigration and the war on terror. I care more about those then social conservatism, so I sacrifice my liberal social view for these ones.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: GHook93 Who is the fattest Pig- Meaning Biggest Wasteful Pork Barrel Spender? 276 House of Representatives that spend less on Wasteful Pork Barrel Projects, including 4 presidential candidates. He preached against McCain and that spending is out of control, yet McCain spend literally $0 on pork projects and Paul spend $22 million. If he did what he preaches then that number would be $0.

Well, to be honest, you are entirely correct.


In reality though, $22 Million, with a "m", is zero in this economy, and in that Congress. ( Probably needed a traffic light, or something silly like that. )


However, I hope this is not an attempt to compare the integrity of McCain to Ron Paul. ( As if now McCain is Paul's ideological successor. ) Now that would make me laugh.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Well, to be honest, you are entirely correct. In reality though, $22 Million, with a "m", is zero in this economy, and in that Congress. ( Probably needed a traffic light, or something silly like that. )

Pork barrel spending is not for traffic lights or things evolve around that realm.

However, I hope this is not an attempt to compare the integrity of McCain to Ron Paul. ( As if now McCain is Paul's ideological successor. ) Now that would make me laugh.

Successor? Where did you get that. Rather McCain practices what he preaches and, well, RP doesn't.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: GHook93 Rather McCain practices what he preaches and, well, RP doesn't.

Really? Is he a free speech advocate?


Care to tell me how he was keeping Mixed Martial Arts of the televised medium, even under Pay per View events, until he lost his court case?


I don't feel compelled to provide a lot of evidence for this contention now, but suffice to say, I don't believe that he practices what he preaches.


I bet he signed The Patriot Act without reading it as well.


I hope you're not using him as some sort of moral compass.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: GHook93 Ron Paul liberal? You need to take a better look at RP before you call him liberal are like Gravel.

Not a liberal, but a Classical Liberal.

He is conservative on the border

I don't like to pigeon hole anyone to a particular label, but he is primarily a Libertarian. His ideas are anything but "conservative". Classical Liberalism and Libertarian are very similar. Do you recognize this?

, against global warming regulations, against most business regulations, against the income tax, against welfare, against pork barrel spending, wants to lower taxation, pro-life, against foreign aid etc. He is conservative by every stretch of the imagination. The only way he is liberal is the fact that he wants pull out of Iraq and reduce military spending.

I would suggest that you read up on Classical Liberalism before we continue this debate. Classical Liberals believes in civil liberties, but they butt heads against modern day welfare liberals or soft socialists. On economic issues, fiscal conservatives find many common ground with classical liberals.

Both the Reagan and Hatcher administrations were influenced by classical liberal thought espoused by Friedman and Hayek.

Classic liberalism? LOL, liberals like to ignore the constitution and like a bigger Federal government and larger Federal government all the way around. RP has very little in common with liberalism.

Do you plan on continuing to spew empty rhetoric? Classical liberalism played an eminent role in the founding of this country, the DoI, and the Constitution. Socialists hijacked the word liberal during the FDR administration.

This, along with utilitarianism, was a decisive change in "liberal" thought. I think this is where some of your misunderstanding lies.

Why don't you do yourself a favor and google classical liberalism before you continue to make a fool out of yourself. I'll help you begin your search.

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and Individualism

Both are not liberal ideologies. Eliminating the IRS would be best done by the fair tax!

I don't know about that. Perhaps reducing our imperialistic army and cutting inefficient federal programs like to DOE and FEMA would be a start in the right direction.

p.s. I made a previous typo. I do not agree with Paul on all of his economic policies, primarily abolishing the Fed and reverting to a gold a standard. I agree with him on most of his economic policies.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Voluntary Not a liberal, but a Classical Liberal. I don't like to pigeon hole anyone to a particular label, but he is primarily a Libertarian.

I consider him an advocate of "Libertarian Fascism," honestly. His platform takes nationalism to an extreme. He not only emphasizes citizenship but believes that one shouldn't even be a natural born citizen. If he tries to couple that idea with "Libertarianism," I'd be able to pee on the man's grave without feeling badly.
Like Lou Dobbs, he's too simple-minded to realize it's the lack of decent jobs in Mexico that is driving immigration, not some kind of need to "terrorize" Americans.

His candidacy reminds me of one thing:
"Libertarian" is a word thrown around merely in debating points these days. Few people understand what it actually means.

Grandpa h.