View Poll Results: Is Ron Paul Insane?

Voters
153. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. Ron Paul is mentally unstable.

    26 16.99%
  • No. Ron Paul is of sound mind.

    114 74.51%
  • I'm not sure.

    9 5.88%
  • Other.

    4 2.61%
Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 167

Thread: Is Ron Paul Insane?

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    For the record I disagree with his stance on protectionism.
    Ron Paul is not a protectionist. He advocates using tarriffs as a way to increase tax revenue, not as a way to stifle trade. He is simply basing this position off of current market dynamics. We are the largest consumer market in the world, as such there is great demand for access to our market, Ron Paul feels this demand is signifigant enough to warrant a tarriff on certain goods which cannot find markets elsewhere.

  2. #42
    Upper West Side Jacobin
    new coup for you's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
    Last Seen
    07-01-10 @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,643

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    arguing with libertarians is like pounding your head into a wall.

    I'll let the American Conservative do it for me...

    The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right

    Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.

    There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.

    This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.

    The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.

    Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.

    Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?

    Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

    Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in the pleasant parts while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate. This is not just an accidental failing of libertarianism’s believers but an intrinsic temptation of the doctrine that sets it up to fail when
    ever tried, just like Marxism.
    Last edited by new coup for you; 01-26-09 at 03:02 AM.
    And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

  3. #43
    Upper West Side Jacobin
    new coup for you's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Philly, "The City that shoves you back!"
    Last Seen
    07-01-10 @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,643

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    second part

    Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free? What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners? What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society? What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways? What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

    In each of these cases, less freedom today is the price of more tomorrow. Total freedom today would just be a way of running down accumulated social capital and storing up problems for the future. So even if libertarianism is true in some ultimate sense, this does not prove that the libertarian policy choice is the right one today on any particular question.

    Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may prolong it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may prolong it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is simply wrong. If all we want is limited freedom, then mere liberalism will do, or even better, a Burkean conservatism that reveres traditional liberties. There is no need to embrace outright libertarianism just because we want a healthy portion of freedom, and the alternative to libertarianism is not the USSR, it is America’s traditional liberties.

    Libertarianism’s abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.

    Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They claim a “natural order” of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would happen. Furthermore, this means libertarianism is an all-or-nothing proposition: if society continues to protect people from the consequences of their actions in any way, libertarianism regarding specific freedoms is illegitimate. And since society does so protect people, libertarianism is an illegitimate moral position until the Great Libertarian Revolution has occurred.

    And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.

    Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

    The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians’ claim that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what’s best for other people impose their values on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving.

    And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been tried, in various epochs, and doesn’t lead to any wonderful paradise of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.

    A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naïve view of economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail going to the opposite extreme.

    Libertarian naïveté extends to politics. They often confuse the absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such. But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a chaotic Third-World tyranny.

    Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.

    This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives should know better.
    And why does your tone suggest that you do not care about children?

  4. #44
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Sold? Most countries come over to America to work on technology and share what they know in exchange for what we know. From medical institutions in America that have agreements with others in the world outside, because of groups like the UN, to our intelligence agencies getting information from other intelligence groups on terrorist threats.
    These institutions can make all the agreements they want who would stop them?

    If we were not intervening in other countries affairs why would anyone feel the need to terrorize us? If the home country of these terrorists was one of our trading partners they would most likely solve the problem themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    When are we not at war?
    Your question is more like an answer. Resources wasted with no quantifiable gain is what some wars give us. How about we leave other people alone and let them sort out their affairs


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    How much of the world do you think would be as willing to trade if we pulled out of the UN? Seriously?
    What would it matter at that point? We would be stating in effect that we no longer care to fight people for stupid reasons.



    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    What?
    You said something about the downsides I think I misread what you were stating. My point was that even a true free market society would not be a euphoric organism of prosperity.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #45
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,253

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    For the record I disagree with his stance on protectionism.
    Then you disagree with the US's current farm subsidy policy...
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  6. #46
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Ron Paul is not a protectionist. He advocates using tarriffs as a way to increase tax revenue, not as a way to stifle trade. He is simply basing this position off of current market dynamics. We are the largest consumer market in the world, as such there is great demand for access to our market, Ron Paul feels this demand is signifigant enough to warrant a tarriff on certain goods which cannot find markets elsewhere.
    Yea, I read the link to quickly and saw protectionism stuck it the quote.

    Threw me off but I tried to address it as fact.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #47
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Then you disagree with the US's current farm subsidy policy...
    Its an horrible top down socialist waste of time.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #48
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Do you remember a little thing called the American Revolution?

    It was a trifling matter, I know, but most of what Ron Paul advocates has its origins in our country's birth.
    Argument to patriotic emotion Ethereal? Come on now. But since you chose to go down this road :

    American Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Americans formed an alliance with France in 1778 that evened the military and naval strengths, later bringing Spain and the Dutch Republic into the conflict by their own alliance with France. Although Loyalists were estimated to comprise 15-20% of the population,[1] throughout the war the Patriots generally controlled 80-90% of the territory; the British could hold only a few coastal cities for any extended period of time. Two main British armies surrendered to the Continental Army, at Saratoga in 1777 and Yorktown in 1781, amounting to victory in the war for the United States. The Second Continental Congress transitioned to the Congress of the Confederation with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation earlier in 1781. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 was ratified by this new national government, and ended British claims to any of the thirteen states.
    France in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Spain in the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Which part is that?

    That's like saying, aside from his stance on _________, Obama is a black nationalist. In order to be classified as an isolationist Ron Paul must have espoused a policy which meets all the prerequisites of that definition, not a mere portion of it.
    Ah yes the 'many different definitions' argument. You made it clear that Ron Paul was a non-interventionist (he even defines himself as one). I brought up the definition of isolationism and excluded the one thing that stopped him from being an isolationist which was well, economic nationalism. So in every other aspect it seems like the way he defines himself is isolationist in nature. He's an isolationist who is against economic nationalism. What exactly are you not getting?
    Ron Paul believes in free-trade (which immediately disqualifies him as an isolationist), a strong national defense, and effective diplomacy. And yes, I do have a question; what is so important about being a member of NATO and the UN?
    NATO members help U.S. in its Iraq effort - International Herald Tribune

    UNITED NATIONS, New York: European countries have overcome their past differences with the United States over Iraq and all 26 NATO members are now providing training and equipment to Baghdad, according to the alliance's secretary general.

    The official, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a former Dutch foreign minister who backed the Bush administration's war while many Europeans opposed it, said Tuesday that he was about to raise the NATO flag over a hugecomplex in Baghdad that had prepared 1,000 Iraqi officers inside the country and 500 more outside.
    Focus on the UN: behind-the-scenes benefits to Americans - various UN agencies and their services | US Department of State Dispatch | Find Articles at BNET

    UN organizations concerned with nuclear energy, illegal narcotics, and transportation--to name a few--are essential to ensuring the security and safety of Americans at home and abroad. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) promotes multilateral efforts to enhance radiation protection and nuclear safety, and helps nations develop peaceful uses for nuclear power. IAEA technical assistance and cooperation programs support U.S. nonproliferation goals by bringing the benefits of nuclear techniques in electrical power, medicine, agriculture, and science to countries which support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA safeguards.
    Americans traveling abroad directly benefit from U.S. membership in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which sets the standards for safe international civil aviation. ICAO's high standards for aviation safety and airport security help to protect Americans when they travel overseas and help to maintain the competitive edge of the world-leading U.S. aviation industry. Ensuring the safety of international airline travel is especially important to the U.S., since Americans make up 40% of the world's airline passengers.
    Seriously dude. Ron Paul's idea that we can just pull out of the UN and everything will be alright is silly at best and a little scary at worst. There is a reason the world gets together and tries to agree on ****. Can you imagine how many would die if we didn't share all we share because of the UN?
    Last edited by Hatuey; 01-26-09 at 03:14 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  9. #49
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by new coup for you View Post
    arguing with libertarians is like pounding your head into a wall.

    I'll let the American Conservative do it for me...

    The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right
    I only read the first few lines. After the initial barrage of personal attacks from it, they already proved to me their argument was weak.

    Argue with facts!
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #50
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Is Ron Paul Insane?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Argument to patriotic emotion Ethereal? Come on now. But since you chose to go down this road
    You say this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Seriously dude. Ron Paul's idea that we can just pull out of the UN and everything will be alright is silly at best and a little scary at worst. There is a reason the world gets together and tries to agree on ****. Can you imagine how many would die if we didn't share all we share because of the UN?
    And then you do your appeal to fear.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •