here's the thing, the doctrinal position "leave me alone and i'll leave you alone" is a bit quaint in the type of world he live in today with its massively connected and interdependent economics.
the other thing, is that alot of the fringe groups like the militia separatists and the white supremacists actually DO intend to hurt other people so THEY AND THEY ALONE can benefit from "privacy, peace, and a good economy". like i said, its pretty obvious that these groups have badly misinterpreted Ron Paul's message and that Ron Paul himself does not condone their immoral behavior. however, his views are on the same axis as the fringe groups and i see that as an insurmountable political problem for him.
Racism accusations are a political tool. I've read about them smearing Buchanan that way when he was doing well years back. It's the expedient way to take down someone you can't beat in a debate. For another thing, I don't know how many people you are speaking for, but I'm sure many of them (I'd like to know how you define 'militia separatists' by the way) would disagree.
Your first point doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not saying there should be no ecomony (which is what seems to be implied by your take on what I said), no interaction among people. There should be no infringement of the rights of anybody by anybody. Does that clear things up?
There should be no infringement of the rights of anybody by anybody. Does that clear things up?
While I agree with that statement in a moral sense it is pretty meaningless in practicality. It only works within a set of clearly defined rights with clearly defined precedence of which rights take priority.
While I agree with that statement in a moral sense it is pretty meaningless in practicality. It only works within a set of clearly defined rights with clearly defined precedence of which rights take priority.
What? no. Noone has the right to infringe upon anyone else's rights. How is there ever a conflict of rights? Anyone who stops someone from excercising a right is out of their rights because it is expressly out of their rights to do so.
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, without infringing upon someone else's.
This is really simple. There are no conflicts when you remember that last part.
Remember that the government is something that WE construct to ensure that this happens correctly. That is it's SOLE purpose.
What? no. Noone has the right to infringe upon anyone else's rights. How is there ever a conflict of rights? Anyone who stops someone from excercising a right is out of their rights because it is expressly out of their rights to do so.
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, without infringing upon someone else's.
This is really simple. There are no conflicts when you remember that last part.
Remember that the government is something that WE construct to ensure that this happens correctly. That is it's SOLE purpose.
So what happens when my right to Life infringes on your right to Pursue Happiness? Which should take precedence?
So what happens when my right to Life infringes on your right to Pursue Happiness? Which should take precedence?
If my happiness requires your death, then I never had a right to it in the first place. There exists no conflict.
What I'm describing is not new, it's the basis of the system we have right now, we've just lost sight of a lot of it. 99.9% of all criminal law already follows this. The other .1% are the laws that ban sodomy, poker night and booze after 2am. The system still needs to exist to keep the boundaries clear (zoning for strip clubs, noise ordinances, etc.) but it needs to ease off quite a bit.
If my happiness requires your death, then I never had a right to it in the first place. There exists no conflict.
I was actually referring to the reverse situation. What if my living requires you not to be able to pursue your happiness. ie. you pursuing happiness is not the cause of my death but you stopping pursuing happiness will save my life.
I was actually referring to the reverse situation. What if my living requires you not to be able to pursue your happiness. ie. you pursuing happiness is not the cause of my death but you stopping pursuing happiness will save my life.
Would you mind painting a scenario for this one? I think if I answered it as-is it would be taken the wrong way.
alot of the fringe groups like the militia separatists and the white supremacists actually DO intend to hurt other people so THEY AND THEY ALONE can benefit from "privacy, peace, and a good economy".
Gonna have to call you on that one. Where did you find out about these groups who intend to hurt people, and how are they related to Ron Paul?
I agree with Shink that if government doesn't do their job and won't step aside when the people aren't happy, they should be forcibly removed. We don't pay them to enslave us, we pay them to do the things outlined in our agreement with them - the Constitution. Their enslavement of us isn't what we intended, and the majority of us who now accept that as "normal" are making it really hard for those of us who still have a clue what's going on to do anything about it.
I KNEW there was something odd about having to work in a coal mine 23 hours a day with no food or water. Curse you, government! I want to be FREEEEEEE!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Gonna have to call you on that one. Where did you find out about these groups who intend to hurt people, and how are they related to Ron Paul?
I agree with Shink that if government doesn't do their job and won't step aside when the people aren't happy, they should be forcibly removed. We don't pay them to enslave us, we pay them to do the things outlined in our agreement with them - the Constitution. Their enslavement of us isn't what we intended, and the majority of us who now accept that as "normal" are making it really hard for those of us who still have a clue what's going on to do anything about it.
You know, maybe if the majority 'don't have a clue', maybe it's just that the minority are paranoid conspiracists?
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
You know, maybe if the majority 'don't have a clue', maybe it's just that the minority are paranoid conspiracists?
Maybe the word "conspiracy" exists because it represents something that actually happens over and over again in governments from the beginning of written history all the way up to and including today? Maybe it's not synonymous with "paranoid". Maybe things actually DO go wrong, empires DO fall, and sheep DO get slaughtered?
I think the deluded ones are those who believe they know everything that's going on behind closed doors.
Seriously, that last post of yours qualifies almost perfectly as paranoia.
Wait, you mean the post where he commented on how ridiculous it is that as soon as someone uses the C word they get labeled paranoid? The post you IMMEDIATELY labeled him paranoid for? That's a really irritating assumption.
I remember my history classes being about conspiracy after conspiracy but as soon as someone says one has occurred, they're crazy. The sinking of the Maine, the Reichstag fire, The gulf of tonkin, these are historically accepted conspiracies to further the aims of various groups of war hawks.
The Kennedy assassination has been investigated by 3 separate congressional panels and the two most recent ones found for "Probable conspiracy" their words, not mine and suggested "further investigation" One of them declassified 4 million pages of documents which support that, but if someone has the spunk to suggest it wasn't LHO acting alone they get labeled as a crazy conspiracy nut right off the bat. This is unacceptable in a debate forum. Leave those assumptions at the water cooler, this place is for logical debate.
Gonna have to call you on that one. Where did you find out about these groups who intend to hurt people, and how are they related to Ron Paul?
i don't mean to spread any false information about Ron Paul, i apologize if i wasn't clear enough in my previous posts.
there are none of these fringe groups that are active participants in the Ron Paul campaign or to my knowledge have ever worked with Ron Paul. the closest they've ever come to officially supporting him is attempting to donate some money, and Ron Paul sent the checks back.
the groups are not related to Ron Paul in any sense other than the fact that they share many of his extremely libertarian positions.
Paul is a good example of libertarianism done right. Unfortunately it is also very frequently done wrong, which was the reason I brought up the example of the various militia groups and supremacist groups. These fringe groups are also libertarians, of a sort, a very immoral and corrupted sort.
I do believe that our government would be improved by some of Ron Paul's policy's and certainly quite a bit by his own personal integrity. However, the full libertarian position he espouses is in reality far too radical to be workable in our politics and economy. So many of his positions would have to be compromised that I doubt he would still resemble a libertarian when all was said and done and not just a run of the mill fiscal conservative.
Racism accusations are a political tool. I've read about them smearing Buchanan that way when he was doing well years back. It's the expedient way to take down someone you can't beat in a debate. For another thing, I don't know how many people you are speaking for, but I'm sure many of them (I'd like to know how you define 'militia separatists' by the way) would disagree.
Buchanan didn't have numerous racist newsletters written under his name. Buchanan didn't also admit to writing these newsletters. Nor did he make the finally make the assertion that some "ghostwriter" who he can't name actually wrote all these newsletters under his name, written in the first person, using personal details, and with his signature years after the fact.
The sinking of the Maine, the Reichstag fire, The gulf of tonkin, these are historically accepted conspiracies to further the aims of various groups of war hawks.
And all these conspiracies were limited in duration and scope. The sort of sweeping, long-term, institutional conspiracy that R_E is describing just doesn't happen; the truth will out.
This is not to say that the cumulative effect of people in positions of power acting in their less-than-fully-ethical self-interest can't produce some conspiracy-like effects. A "Fourth Estate" seriously biased one way or another can cause some dramatic distortions in reality without anyone at all getting together and deciding to cook up some evil.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
there are none of these fringe groups that are active participants in the Ron Paul campaign or to my knowledge have ever worked with Ron Paul. the closest they've ever come to officially supporting him is attempting to donate some money, and Ron Paul sent the checks back.
This is wrong. The popular example was when the founder of Stormfront, the largest white supremacist board on the Internet, sent Ron Paul a donation and some bloggers found out about it and called him on it. Paul's campaign was questioned as to why he didn't send the money back and they gave a line that went something like "well, at least the money isn't in the racists hands now".
This is wrong. The popular example was when the founder of Stormfront, the largest white supremacist board on the Internet, sent Ron Paul a donation and some bloggers found out about it and called him on it. Paul's campaign was questioned as to why he didn't send the money back and they gave a line that went something like "well, at least the money isn't in the racists hands now".
Ok, If this is actually true, my opinion of the guy just jumped a bit.
did he keep the money for his campaign? thats a pretty awful thing to do. more information on this please, as i was under the impression the check was returned.
did he keep the money for his campaign? thats a pretty awful thing to do. more information on this please, as i was under the impression the check was returned.
Quitcher trolling, Gedca. I know nobody is that ignorant.
Every campaign has received money from questionable sources. This thread has been over the topic three times since that particular check happened. We even discussed the photo of Ron Paul shaking a racist's hand. You know, the one where the racist had his son take a photo of him shaking Ron Paul's hand, Ron Paul not knowing who he was, simply smiling and taking a random supporter's outstretched hand. Does that "prove" anything, other than a racist can send in a check? That a racist can ambush a candidate with a photo, publish it on his racism website, and smear a candidate? For all anyone knows, it and other events like it are paid for by Hiliary. Maybe using cash she got from hundreds of dishonest/racist sources, or perhaps from corporate sponsors, or lobbyist groups. But people choose to see the evil horrible nasty racist check as some kind of proof Ron Paul will be a bad president.
Seriously, you guys are gonna get what you deserve. I promise you, the US is done for, and I think it's about time, really. What a joke.
Looks like Ron Paul doesn't believe he has a chance as a Republican, as of yesterday's notice on his website, and still doesn't plan to run third party, so this thread's about complete anyway. I believe his plans are to continue to try and educate people about the Constitution, fight for personal rights, the end of the Iraq war, the end of occupations and nation building overseas, etc. He'll do so from his position as Congressman, which he's currently attempting to campaign for. It'll be his 11th term. Perhaps fittingly (hopefully not), the thread is closed. I hope the movement toward less taxes, smaller government, and personal rights isn't over. Thanks all, for the discussion.
Racism accusations are a political tool. I've read about them smearing Buchanan that way when he was doing well years back. It's the expedient way to take down someone you can't beat in a debate. For another thing, I don't know how many people you are speaking for, but I'm sure many of them (I'd like to know how you define 'militia separatists' by the way) would disagree.
Your first point doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not saying there should be no ecomony (which is what seems to be implied by your take on what I said), no interaction among people. There should be no infringement of the rights of anybody by anybody. Does that clear things up?
RON PAUL
R[ƎVO˩]UTION
The Philosophy of Liberty
While I agree with that statement in a moral sense it is pretty meaningless in practicality. It only works within a set of clearly defined rights with clearly defined precedence of which rights take priority.
What? no. Noone has the right to infringe upon anyone else's rights. How is there ever a conflict of rights? Anyone who stops someone from excercising a right is out of their rights because it is expressly out of their rights to do so.
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, without infringing upon someone else's.
This is really simple. There are no conflicts when you remember that last part.
Remember that the government is something that WE construct to ensure that this happens correctly. That is it's SOLE purpose.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
So what happens when my right to Life infringes on your right to Pursue Happiness? Which should take precedence?
If my happiness requires your death, then I never had a right to it in the first place. There exists no conflict.
What I'm describing is not new, it's the basis of the system we have right now, we've just lost sight of a lot of it. 99.9% of all criminal law already follows this. The other .1% are the laws that ban sodomy, poker night and booze after 2am. The system still needs to exist to keep the boundaries clear (zoning for strip clubs, noise ordinances, etc.) but it needs to ease off quite a bit.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
I was actually referring to the reverse situation. What if my living requires you not to be able to pursue your happiness. ie. you pursuing happiness is not the cause of my death but you stopping pursuing happiness will save my life.
Would you mind painting a scenario for this one? I think if I answered it as-is it would be taken the wrong way.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
Gonna have to call you on that one. Where did you find out about these groups who intend to hurt people, and how are they related to Ron Paul?
I agree with Shink that if government doesn't do their job and won't step aside when the people aren't happy, they should be forcibly removed. We don't pay them to enslave us, we pay them to do the things outlined in our agreement with them - the Constitution. Their enslavement of us isn't what we intended, and the majority of us who now accept that as "normal" are making it really hard for those of us who still have a clue what's going on to do anything about it.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
You know, maybe if the majority 'don't have a clue', maybe it's just that the minority are paranoid conspiracists?
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
Maybe the word "conspiracy" exists because it represents something that actually happens over and over again in governments from the beginning of written history all the way up to and including today? Maybe it's not synonymous with "paranoid". Maybe things actually DO go wrong, empires DO fall, and sheep DO get slaughtered?
I think the deluded ones are those who believe they know everything that's going on behind closed doors.
Wait, you mean the post where he commented on how ridiculous it is that as soon as someone uses the C word they get labeled paranoid? The post you IMMEDIATELY labeled him paranoid for? That's a really irritating assumption.
I remember my history classes being about conspiracy after conspiracy but as soon as someone says one has occurred, they're crazy. The sinking of the Maine, the Reichstag fire, The gulf of tonkin, these are historically accepted conspiracies to further the aims of various groups of war hawks.
The Kennedy assassination has been investigated by 3 separate congressional panels and the two most recent ones found for "Probable conspiracy" their words, not mine and suggested "further investigation" One of them declassified 4 million pages of documents which support that, but if someone has the spunk to suggest it wasn't LHO acting alone they get labeled as a crazy conspiracy nut right off the bat. This is unacceptable in a debate forum. Leave those assumptions at the water cooler, this place is for logical debate.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
i don't mean to spread any false information about Ron Paul, i apologize if i wasn't clear enough in my previous posts.
there are none of these fringe groups that are active participants in the Ron Paul campaign or to my knowledge have ever worked with Ron Paul. the closest they've ever come to officially supporting him is attempting to donate some money, and Ron Paul sent the checks back.
the groups are not related to Ron Paul in any sense other than the fact that they share many of his extremely libertarian positions.
Paul is a good example of libertarianism done right. Unfortunately it is also very frequently done wrong, which was the reason I brought up the example of the various militia groups and supremacist groups. These fringe groups are also libertarians, of a sort, a very immoral and corrupted sort.
I do believe that our government would be improved by some of Ron Paul's policy's and certainly quite a bit by his own personal integrity. However, the full libertarian position he espouses is in reality far too radical to be workable in our politics and economy. So many of his positions would have to be compromised that I doubt he would still resemble a libertarian when all was said and done and not just a run of the mill fiscal conservative.
Buchanan didn't have numerous racist newsletters written under his name. Buchanan didn't also admit to writing these newsletters. Nor did he make the finally make the assertion that some "ghostwriter" who he can't name actually wrote all these newsletters under his name, written in the first person, using personal details, and with his signature years after the fact.
And all these conspiracies were limited in duration and scope. The sort of sweeping, long-term, institutional conspiracy that R_E is describing just doesn't happen; the truth will out.
This is not to say that the cumulative effect of people in positions of power acting in their less-than-fully-ethical self-interest can't produce some conspiracy-like effects. A "Fourth Estate" seriously biased one way or another can cause some dramatic distortions in reality without anyone at all getting together and deciding to cook up some evil.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is wrong. The popular example was when the founder of Stormfront, the largest white supremacist board on the Internet, sent Ron Paul a donation and some bloggers found out about it and called him on it. Paul's campaign was questioned as to why he didn't send the money back and they gave a line that went something like "well, at least the money isn't in the racists hands now".
Ok, If this is actually true, my opinion of the guy just jumped a bit.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/
No, he kept it. Now everytime I see one of his ads I think to myself "Was this ad funded by white supremacists?"
Every campaign has received money from questionable sources. This thread has been over the topic three times since that particular check happened. We even discussed the photo of Ron Paul shaking a racist's hand. You know, the one where the racist had his son take a photo of him shaking Ron Paul's hand, Ron Paul not knowing who he was, simply smiling and taking a random supporter's outstretched hand. Does that "prove" anything, other than a racist can send in a check? That a racist can ambush a candidate with a photo, publish it on his racism website, and smear a candidate? For all anyone knows, it and other events like it are paid for by Hiliary. Maybe using cash she got from hundreds of dishonest/racist sources, or perhaps from corporate sponsors, or lobbyist groups. But people choose to see the evil horrible nasty racist check as some kind of proof Ron Paul will be a bad president.
Seriously, you guys are gonna get what you deserve. I promise you, the US is done for, and I think it's about time, really. What a joke.
Attitudes on this thread have grown FAR too out of hand, and this is why we can't have nice things.
Twitter