Ron Paul, 2012

HURR DURR DON'T STRAWMEN US YOU LIBERTARIAN FUCKS. YOU ARE ALL CORPORATIST FASCIST PRO-DICTATORSHIP UNEDUCATED REDNECKS WHO WANT POOR MEN TO DIE. LOL AT YOU

Even ignoring whether libertarian ideals are at all pragmatic, the reality is that it's the republican party libertarians will be voting for, and Republicans as a party, they're not as libertarian as they'd claim.

Ron Paul is more libertarian than Republican though (a classic example of RINO). I just don't like the fact that while not wanting to be strawmanned, you are strawmanning the libertarians and Ron Paul supporters into some kind of bizzare mixture of corporationism, fascism and fundamentalism.

I'm not straw manning anyone. I'm just not talking about any particular politician.

But practically speaking, in Ron Paul got elected, all it would do is advance the republican agenda, NOT the libertarian agenda. Congress would be LESS libertarian, now don't you think?

Besides: What did I-or whoever-say that's a straw man to begin with?

edited 21st May '11 11:14:19 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Looking back, while I could have handled the debate better, and less kneejerk,more polite, at no point did we say that. Mostly we just think an unregulated would not benefit anyone not on the top.

How to put it, I view the free market as a machine and regulations as the maintenance. If you don't maintain the machine, it breaks down. If you don't keep free market in check, eventually it breaks down, no doubt causing massive damage to the economy in the process.

On the flip side, when you're running maintenance on the machine, you're not getting active use out of the machine, because it's down for maintenance. So, sure, there's such a thing as too much maintenance.

But the market is not futuristic technology with nanobot repair mechanisms.

True, but that's more an argument for making the maintenance smarter, not eliminating it altogether.

Exactly. Libertarians want to form a false dichotomy between stupid regulations and no regulations, whereas non-libertarians want to make our regulations better. Though, some don't go very far to explaining that.

edited 21st May '11 11:18:27 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

obviously it would be more libertarian because RP's biggest focus is free market ecconomy, not the other things. He actually thinks that most of the issues should be regulated by states, not by the central goverment so don't expect central goverment forcing you into ultraconservative bullshit.

I'd say it becomes more of a hinderance than mainetance. We're drowning in burreaucracy, needless regulation and high taxes. Trying to get rich stops being promising when a lot of your money is going to be taken away and given to the others (most of them being politicians)

edited 21st May '11 11:18:10 AM by nzm1536

We are not drowning in any of those things, pull your head out of your ass. No one stops trying to be rich due to bureaucracy-they stop trying to be rich because the market is formed against newcomers due to the existence of market power of already existing firms.

edited 21st May '11 11:19:30 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

You cant have zero controls on it either though, or else you quickly see companies pulling the most compeition killing moves they can to increase their own profits.

From my personal experience, we are. I'm not American though, but from what I've heard the regulations in the US aren't much different from the regulations in the EU

State creates more monopolies. Again, I'm not for total lack of control. I'm for highly limited control only where absolutely necessary.

edited 21st May '11 11:20:56 AM by nzm1536

Not even close.

Personally, I'm sort of thinking of a "Grass is always greener" type analysis.

edited 21st May '11 11:21:52 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

Oh God, don't get us started state rights. In Mass we'll be fine sure, but in the Bible Belt? Schools won't have any funding and creationism will be taught in every classroom. There are some things that really should be left for the states because they'll be detrimental to the country as a whole.

I don't think that's what he meant by state.

State has a big advantage - you can leave it without much formalities. If those people want to subject themselves to idiocy, they will. If they don't they'll just move not that far away

edited 21st May '11 11:23:07 AM by nzm1536

I got ninja'd a few times.

Can be pretty hard if say your poor and the only places available are of the same poor quality. While people do move all the time, it's not as easy as you seem think it is. You need to money, a job lined up, housing, and a means to move. And being a graduate of a sub par school affects your prospects rather severely.

edited 21st May '11 11:27:25 AM by Alichains

Oh, I stand corrected.

And AHH HA HA HA HA HA HA-voting with your feet. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. THAT works.

People can't just move that easily in the states-it costs asstons to relocate, and despite the internet, not having any friends in the area kills your ability to network, which kills your ability to get jobs.

In the very long run, people will tend to congregate with others that agree with them politically. That's why a large percentage of the states are either red states or blue states. But suggesting that "If people don't like it, they can just move" is incorrigibly naive.

Who are the minorities to tell the majorities how to live? I personally think that both had their place and shouldn't be forced to do anything. People will be morons even if the central goverment is clever. You can't just force people not to be morons. You have a lot of central regulations and it doesn't change the fact, the Bible Belt is still the same Bible Belt

edited 21st May '11 11:34:37 AM by Alichains

One theme that seems to be repeated a lot in these debates is that their are always options and that these options are easily found and used. I don't think that's the case, a lot of things can get in the way, such as a lack of capitol.

Why should the majorities tell the minorities how to live? There's a reason the minorities need to be protected, they'll get steamrolled by the majority. People being idiots do have consequences.

Sorry for the accidental double post.

edited 21st May '11 11:35:00 AM by Alichains

Majority shouldn't tell minorities anything. Minorities shouldn't be protected because they don't deserve any special rights - everyone desrves the same rights (except of criminals who get some of their rights limited as punishment)

edited 21st May '11 11:36:23 AM by nzm1536

It's not special rights, but the right to not have their rights taken away by the majority. That's what I mean when I say they need protection.

Also: naive. The entire notion of "rights" exists to make sure that the majority doesn't stomp on the minority. This isn't a game where if you have 51% of the vote, that 51% gets to just utterly curbstompobliterate the other 49%.

As for non-rights based legal issues, it's more complicated. Representative government means that people vote for the people, and whoever gets the most votes wins. But that doesn't mean that the person elected isn't representing the people who didn't vote for him. Ideally, we want a case that makes the most people happy-which doesn't necessarily mean we're forced into a binary 51% vs. 49% scenario.

AND even if it were, that has absolutely no bearing on what constitutes ACTUALLY EFFICIENT POLICY.

edited 21st May '11 11:40:10 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

So we agree. Furthermore, Ron Paul and other libertarians agree too. They don't believe in special rights but they do believe in equal rights

Not so different from libertarian opinion as well. One of the biggest reasons I don't want too many regulations is that I don't think politicians should decide for people who don't vote for them

edited 21st May '11 11:41:28 AM by nzm1536