Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What's the matter with Libertarianism? « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17770
Online
#60 : May 22, 2013, 07:53:43 PM


Yours quotes a speech that he made. Mine takes a variety of his statements made in various appearances, that he's made in various interviews with non-mainstream media outlets, and that he's personally written in his books.

In your video he claims that he  sees a proper role of government, and that he admires the constitution. In mine, he says that he sees no proper role for government, and uses the constitution as nothing more than a tool to limit government, because it is easier to cite the constitution for opposition to expanding government's role than it is to argue it on the merits of morality.

The funniest part is, the video I posted wasn't from someone who opposes Paul. It was created by a Ron Paul supporter. A Libertarian, who acknowledges that Paul, when viewed within the framework of his entire philosophical musings, and not just one speech he made at Georgetown University, is not a minarchist. He is an anarcho-capitalist. But keep up that spin, Delirious. Keep saying it, and eventually maybe even you will believe it to be true.

and oh yeah:

The reason I act like I'm smarter than you is because I am.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#61 : May 22, 2013, 08:55:18 PM

Delirious, how about we cut to the chase. I will take just one example presented in that video that not even you can deny to be a truism that will not only challenge your assertion that Paul is a minarchist, but will even call into question whether or not you know your ass from your elbows in regards to the beliefs that you yourself support.

Ron Paul has stated in countless interviews, speeches, and publications that he believes that taxation is theft. He has never shied away from or watered down this characterization. I also have gotten the impression based on numerous posts that you've made that you do not disagree with this characterization.

So if Paul believes taxation is theft, how do you reconcile the fact that even a minimalist form of government must tax it's citizenry in order to function? Is theft no longer considered to be theft just because the amount taken is lowered? How also, do you reconcile the fact that one of the primary purposes of the creation of the US Constitution was to provide the central government with the authority to levy and collect taxes? How do you suppose Ron Paul reconciles it if he does indeed support minimalist government over no government, and supports the Constitution as you suggest that he does?

The truth is that Ron Paul doesn't reconcile it, because he doesn't need to. He's stood by this principle from day 1. You, on the otherhand, have some explaining to do.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17770
Online
#62 : May 22, 2013, 08:59:11 PM

Delirious, how about we cut to the chase. I will take just one example presented in that video that not even you can deny to be a truism that will not only challenge your assertion that Paul is a minarchist, but will even call into question whether or not you know your ass from your elbows in regards to the beliefs that you yourself support.

Ron Paul has stated in countless interviews, speeches, and publications that he believes that taxation is theft. He has never shied away from or watered down this characterization. I also have gotten the impression based on numerous posts that you've made that you do not disagree with this characterization.

So if Paul believes taxation is theft, how do you reconcile the fact that even a minimalist form of government must tax it's citizenry in order to function? Is theft no longer considered to be theft just because the amount taken is lowered? How also, do you reconcile the fact that one of the primary purposes of the creation of the US Constitution was to provide the central government with the authority to levy and collect taxes? How do you suppose Ron Paul reconciles it if he does indeed support minimalist government over no government, and supports the Constitution as you suggest that he does?

The truth is that Ron Paul doesn't reconcile it, because he doesn't need to. He's stood by this principle from day 1. You, on the otherhand, have some explaining to do, so explain this:

The reason I act like I'm smarter than you is because I am.



CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#63 : May 22, 2013, 09:55:24 PM

Uh oh. Vinny Peanuts is off his meds again. Somebody call the psych ward and tell them that they need to do a head count...stat!


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15604
Online
#64 : May 23, 2013, 07:24:43 AM

ohhhhhhh , I have some explaining to do!!   

How about we start by putting Paul in context , you dishonest prick . Here is the DIRECT answer to your question about the "theft" quote . It's INCOME tax he wants to get rid of , and as a fellow Minarchist I happen to agree :



and a further elaboration .....notice not once is there a mention of doing away with government altogether in either of these explanations :




So ,  how's it feel to be a liar , comrade ? You have some explaining to do....

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#65 : May 23, 2013, 11:37:40 AM

ohhhhhhh , I have some explaining to do!!   

How about we start by putting Paul in context , you dishonest prick . Here is the DIRECT answer to your question about the "theft" quote . It's INCOME tax he wants to get rid of , and as a fellow Minarchist I happen to agree :



and a further elaboration .....notice not once is there a mention of doing away with government altogether in either of these explanations :




So ,  how's it feel to be a liar , comrade ? You have some explaining to do....

Oy veh..

I see this is going to require more effort than I originally thought. So let's just delve into it, shall we?

Quote from: Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, by Ron Paul
"We find that the vast government apparatus of 'national security' does not keep us safe so much as threaten our liberties..."

"Private security does not threaten our liberties, but government-provided security does."

Hmmm, so he doesn't see it as government's role to provide security. If that's not it's role, I wonder what he believes government's role is?

Quote from: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul
"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty-even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty."

"The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the founders did not work."

Quote from: End the Fed, by Ron Paul
"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written"

Hmmm, governments are the enemy of liberty, even those created for the purposes of protecting it, and the Constitution doesn't work, and is in fact, incapable of working. Odd words from such a staunch supporter of limited government and the Constitution.

If Paul's statements appear to be at odds with your characterization, Delirious, it is because they are. One cannot suggest that they support liberty, see government as the enemy of liberty, and yet support government, even in a limited role. One cannot believe the Constitution to be both the embodiment of a perfect society, and the embodiment of a failed society. Paul supports returning to a constitutional sized government in the way that a boxer supports getting a split decision over taking a loss. He'll take it, but that's not why he entered the ring. Paul's quotes on taxation are only one example of this.

As a public official, he has to suggest that we should return to excise taxes, because as he states it, he is sworn to his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, which grants government the authority to tax. If government is to have that authority, then he has made it his goal to find the least invasive way in which to grant it that authority. Note that word. "Authority". Where exactly does that word fit in the Libertarian lexicon? A libertarian that supports government authority is like a vegan that supports eating hamburgers, and a libertarian that advocates minarchism, or limited government, is like a vegan that only supports eating hamburgers on weekends.

Paul is a self described voluntaryist: http://theuklibertarian.com/2011/05/06/ron-paul-calls-himself-a-voluntaryist/

What is voluntaryism, you ask?

Quote
Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with, and often used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist and individualist anarchist philosophies.

So here's where, again, you refute not just my assertions about Paul's positions, but even Paul's assertions about his own positions, and then have the nerve to call ME the liar while doing so. Have at it, slappy.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#66 : May 23, 2013, 12:18:40 PM

How about a new topic?

What's the matter with The Cove?

Answer: too much ad hominem, too much personal attacking. You guys spend more time trying to insult the poster than actually debating the content of the post. Some of you will even attack a poster who's opinion is nearly the same as yours solely because of who the poster is. That is pure idiocy.

Can we please get back to debating the issues and enough of the useless and irrelevant name calling. The personal attacks only achieve one thing, to make the attacker look foolish and juvenile. Is it really clever to take a hand full of feces, put it in your mouth and then spit it on your opponent??


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#67 : May 23, 2013, 01:00:14 PM

Now back to the original post.

The first problem with libertarianism is that it has never had a true leader, a true proponent. I am talking about a charismatic leader that can get people excited about its goals and ideals. Liberalism had FDR and JFK. Conservatism had Reagan. The closest the Libertarians have had is a wishy-washy Milquetoast Gynecologist who is way over the hill. The Libertarians need a young strong charismatic voice to explain its ideals to the people and rally those who'd agree to its side.

The second problem with Libertarianism is most people don't really know what it is. And they also don't know what they are and exactly what they believe. So-called conservatives say "we want less government" but then add "except when it concerns abortions, drugs, marriage, immigration, security and defense". IOW they want less government regulation BUT more govt. regulation of A, B, C, D, E, and F. Huh??? Wouldn't eliminating the DEA be a move towards "less government"?? It would certainly reduce the federal budget.

Most people just aren't purely conservative or purely liberal or purely anything. They are more like a Chinese restaurant patron, they want 3 items from column C and 3 items from column L and we'll share some things but not the soup or eggrolls. The 2 major parties realize that and so they are not truly conservative or liberal. Instead each party has picked some items from either side and packaged them in a way that a lot of people will like. The Ds picked women's and minority rights, education, environment, and fiscal safety nets. The Rs chose security, defense, morality ( WASP version of morality), and a low sodium Tax menu. The Ds aren't Liberal and the Rs aren't Conservative, they are just the only 2 Combo platters available. And most people find it easier to order the combo platter rather than voting ala carte. A libertarian platter would have items most people would find "too spi-cy" and it wouldn't have some items they want. If you order strictly Hunan, you will get lots of spi-cy but you won't get eggrolls or wonton soup. And voters want their eggrolls and wonton soup.



Skull and Bones

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 22233
Online
#68 : May 23, 2013, 06:42:07 PM

Now back to the original post.

The first problem with libertarianism is that it has never had a true leader, a true proponent. I am talking about a charismatic leader that can get people excited about its goals and ideals. Liberalism had FDR and JFK. Conservatism had Reagan. The closest the Libertarians have had is a wishy-washy Milquetoast Gynecologist who is way over the hill. The Libertarians need a young strong charismatic voice to explain its ideals to the people and rally those who'd agree to its side.

The second problem with Libertarianism is most people don't really know what it is. And they also don't know what they are and exactly what they believe. So-called conservatives say "we want less government" but then add "except when it concerns abortions, drugs, marriage, immigration, security and defense". IOW they want less government regulation BUT more govt. regulation of A, B, C, D, E, and F. Huh??? Wouldn't eliminating the DEA be a move towards "less government"?? It would certainly reduce the federal budget.

Most people just aren't purely conservative or purely liberal or purely anything. They are more like a Chinese restaurant patron, they want 3 items from column C and 3 items from column L and we'll share some things but not the soup or eggrolls. The 2 major parties realize that and so they are not truly conservative or liberal. Instead each party has picked some items from either side and packaged them in a way that a lot of people will like. The Ds picked women's and minority rights, education, environment, and fiscal safety nets. The Rs chose security, defense, morality ( WASP version of morality), and a low sodium Tax menu. The Ds aren't Liberal and the Rs aren't Conservative, they are just the only 2 Combo platters available. And most people find it easier to order the combo platter rather than voting ala carte. A libertarian platter would have items most people would find "too spi-cy" and it wouldn't have some items they want. If you order strictly Hunan, you will get lots of spi-cy but you won't get eggrolls or wonton soup. And voters want their eggrolls and wonton soup.
post of the thread.  Not that there was much competition.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15604
Online
#69 : May 23, 2013, 09:42:58 PM

So .....plenty of mentions of "limited government" , yet no where does Paul ever recommend "zero government" , or say he plans on shutting down the entire government on every level . He's even worked FOR the government for a large part of his adult life as a career politician ... but somehow he is an unquestionable anarchist.  Comrade knows he's an anarchist without him saying it , because he understands libertarianism better than libertarians . He understands Ron Paul better than Ron Paul . He can discern the REAL hidden meanings behind the cherry-picked out-of-context snipets he chose which don't actually say what he's wanting them to say.


 LOL , is this CBW nimrod for real ? 



You really don't know how to just cut your loses and slink away into the night , do you ?It's over , and you've made a fool of yourself yet again . Suck it up and stop wasting bandwith .




What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#70 : May 24, 2013, 12:25:41 AM

So .....plenty of mentions of "limited government" , yet no where does Paul ever recommend "zero government" , or say he plans on shutting down the entire government on every level . He's even worked FOR the government for a large part of his adult life as a career politician ... but somehow he is an unquestionable anarchist.  Comrade knows he's an anarchist without him saying it , because he understands libertarianism better than libertarians . He understands Ron Paul better than Ron Paul . He can discern the REAL hidden meanings behind the cherry-picked out-of-context snipets he chose which don't actually say what he's wanting them to say.

Paul is a self described voluntaryist: http://theuklibertarian.com/2011/05/06/ron-paul-calls-himself-a-voluntaryist/

What is voluntaryism, you ask?

Quote
Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with, and often used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist and individualist anarchist philosophies.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#71 : May 24, 2013, 12:35:52 AM

Now back to the original post.

The first problem with libertarianism is that it has never had a true leader, a true proponent. I am talking about a charismatic leader that can get people excited about its goals and ideals. Liberalism had FDR and JFK. Conservatism had Reagan. The closest the Libertarians have had is a wishy-washy Milquetoast Gynecologist who is way over the hill. The Libertarians need a young strong charismatic voice to explain its ideals to the people and rally those who'd agree to its side.

The second problem with Libertarianism is most people don't really know what it is. And they also don't know what they are and exactly what they believe. So-called conservatives say "we want less government" but then add "except when it concerns abortions, drugs, marriage, immigration, security and defense". IOW they want less government regulation BUT more govt. regulation of A, B, C, D, E, and F. Huh??? Wouldn't eliminating the DEA be a move towards "less government"?? It would certainly reduce the federal budget.

Most people just aren't purely conservative or purely liberal or purely anything. They are more like a Chinese restaurant patron, they want 3 items from column C and 3 items from column L and we'll share some things but not the soup or eggrolls. The 2 major parties realize that and so they are not truly conservative or liberal. Instead each party has picked some items from either side and packaged them in a way that a lot of people will like. The Ds picked women's and minority rights, education, environment, and fiscal safety nets. The Rs chose security, defense, morality ( WASP version of morality), and a low sodium Tax menu. The Ds aren't Liberal and the Rs aren't Conservative, they are just the only 2 Combo platters available. And most people find it easier to order the combo platter rather than voting ala carte. A libertarian platter would have items most people would find "too spi-cy" and it wouldn't have some items they want. If you order strictly Hunan, you will get lots of spi-cy but you won't get eggrolls or wonton soup. And voters want their eggrolls and wonton soup.

This is pretty much what I was suggesting, although stated a bit differently. When I said that Libertarianism has an identity crisis, I didn't mean that Libertarianism as an ideal does. I meant that Libertarianism as a movement does for precisely the reasons that you described. Most Americans either associate mostly with classical liberalist, modern liberalist, or conservative principles. Libertarianism as an ideal takes issue with certain aspects of each of those philosophies, but has to try and appeal to other aspects of each and then try to sell the rest of itself to people in order to grow itself as a movement. It's had mixed results, and has lead to a great deal of confusion as to exactly what it is from people who are unaware of it.


The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 22264
Offline
#72 : May 24, 2013, 02:30:01 AM

How about a new topic?

What's the matter with The Cove?

Answer: too much ad hominem, too much personal attacking. You guys spend more time trying to insult the poster than actually debating the content of the post. Some of you will even attack a poster who's opinion is nearly the same as yours solely because of who the poster is. That is pure idiocy.

Can we please get back to debating the issues and enough of the useless and irrelevant name calling. The personal attacks only achieve one thing, to make the attacker look foolish and juvenile. Is it really clever to take a hand full of feces, put it in your mouth and then spit it on your opponent??





+ one million


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15604
Online
#73 : May 24, 2013, 07:44:50 AM

Context:



 ADAM KOKESH:
So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?
 
RON PAUL:
Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. ( A.K.A. Limited Government that protects liberties )  So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.
 
ADAM KOKESH:
Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?
 
RON PAUL:
Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritation approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RF1PMPbc0WA

We had one  ?  Oops . Sounds like Paul's version of Voluntaryism can involve a limited government .



Looks like more smoke and mirrors from the Wiz .  Dumbest Man on the Cove. How's it feel ?

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5920
Offline
#74 : May 25, 2013, 12:15:44 AM

Context:



 ADAM KOKESH:
So you've described yourself as a voluntarist. Can you tell us what that means for the big picture, and what your ideal society would be, as a voluntarist?
 
RON PAUL:
Voluntary means no coercion. So if you want to change people's habits or change the world you should do it by setting examples and trying to persuade people to do it. You can use force only when somebody uses force against you. ( A.K.A. Limited Government that protects liberties )  So voluntary use of information and persuading people, I think, is the best way to go; and no matter what kind of problem you're looking at.
 
ADAM KOKESH:
Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals in America?
 
RON PAUL:
Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritation approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can't do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RF1PMPbc0WA

We had one  ?  Oops . Sounds like Paul's version of Voluntaryism can involve a limited government .



Looks like more smoke and mirrors from the Wiz .  Dumbest Man on the Cove. How's it feel ?

If you want to see smoke and mirrors take a gander at your last post. Since when does "relativley voluntary" mean the same as "voluntary"? Paul calls himself a volunatryist. The definition of valuntaryism is posted for all to see. You are grasping at straws, and it's pretty evident. But que sera sera.

Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What's the matter with Libertarianism? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools