Ron Paul, 2012

Obviously, but the chruches don't create law

Buying the product doesnt change you.

But commercials stating outright truth bends like "4 out of 5 dentists prefer" or "New and improved" tend to be at best flagrantly stretching the truth to look good. Objective facts about products rarely exist, and are usually not used in ads.

and lack of objective facts screws up capitalism big time because people cant make rational decisions about what they buy without concrete information.

edited 21st May '11 1:36:16 PM by Midgetsnowman

Um, they certainly do. A lot of money is spent by churches to influence politicians.

We don't live in theocracy the last time I checked. If those chruches were the lawmakers, we'd be sitting in our basements hiding from fundies with Torches and Pitchforks while plotting lulzy revolution

As it turns out advertisement can cause harm.

edited 21st May '11 1:43:33 PM by Alichains

Saying they don't pass laws is just blithely ignoring the influence they do have, and it is substantial.

Have you not noticed the recent wave of anti-abortion laws? Who do you think is behind that? Pampers?

You know that not only church fundies oppose abortion, don't you?

They do tend to be the largest and most vocal group to satisfy, though.

You are aware that I was pointing out their influencing of the laws, not arguing that they were the only ones, right?

We're kinda wandering far afield of Ron Paul though. We could go back on track by looking at who gives him money I guess.

Still, saying that anti-abortion laws are passed because we are ruled by churches is like saying that sugar is legal because nazis make law

This thread tends to die whenever the topic goes back to being about Ron Paul. Evidently he's just not very interesting.

Except the Nazi's haven't been known to bomb sugar factories and sugar isn't a hot button issue.

edited 21st May '11 1:55:31 PM by Alichains

I guess we should lock it then.

Seems to me that you're confused about what I've been saying, which is that you seem to be overlooking the influences many groups have, or try to have, through laws and advertising, and really, your argument just seems to be trying to do your best to avoid admitting that it's not just the scary tyrannical government that is a problem.

But yeah, if we can't get back to Ron Paul, it's kinda fodder for a different thread I guess.

edited 21st May '11 1:59:26 PM by blueharp

Obviously, the goverment is not the only problem. I just think that the goverment shouldn't and can't solve problems of the society, unless it takes away the freedom and becomes the bigger problem. And I like freedom. And that is, to get back on topic, why I'd vote RP if I was American

And then we'll going to try to explain why it's not really free if the more powerful are allowed to dick around with you, causing the topic to derail yet again.

And the reason I'd tell you not to vote Ron Paul is because even if by some miracle he was elected, and that he really manages to follow his agenda, much of it won't do anything to make things better. Some might, but hey, who said he was wrong about everything?

But, at least in the states, history seems to show otherwise. The Civil Rights Act, which Ron Paul has said was a mistake and he would not vote for it, didn't lead to some kind of cruel denial of business owners fundamental rights, it just codified the law to be more fair.

Remember, Law isn't just about what we enforce. That's a large part of it, but the law is also a way of creating a culture of what is acceptable. It's true that, given a lot of time and attention, business owners can change in a more reasonable direction without direct force of law, but generally the sense is, "Well, if this was wrong, it'd be illegal." If discrimination is permitted by law, barring an obvious reason why it has to be (ala, the first amendment), it is implicitly promoted by the law.

It is absurd to believe that the law has no bearing in guiding our country on a reasonable path into the future. It's true that there are certainly areas where the government shouldn't intervene, but these are usually not issues of "freedom;" they are issues where the transaction costs of instigating and enforcing legislation is just impractical. Of course, it's entirely possible to have laws that are ACTUALLY prohibiting freedom, but the EPA? Consumer Protection Laws? Really? You think these things are somehow strangling businesses, preventing their right to free exercise? Give me a fucking break.

And don't call that a strawman-that is what libertarians in America want. Those are the things they are gunning for. That's not a Straw Man-unless Libertarians in America, aka RON PAUL, are straw men come to life.

<Ron Paul> If I oooooonly hada a braaaaaain~

Really, people don't get RP or libertarianism. Removal of burreaucracy and regulations doesn't mean that we'll go back to the jungle and law of fist. It isn't law for the rich either. Was USA before the world wars a dystopia ruled by the rich? Is Hong-Kong like that? Or South Korea? The biggest fallacy is the belief that politicans are saving us from some evil conspiracy or shit

@Tomu: for me, the big problem is that we shift from forbiding what's wrong to forcing what's (percieved as) right. Earlier anti-racism was removal of slavery. Nowadays, it's affirmative action and political correctness. I've been called racist for actually supporting equal rights without AA and PC while all I am for is equality (equal rights, total equality in eerything would be communism)

edited 21st May '11 2:12:22 PM by nzm1536

A.) Yeah, pre-industrialized world, America was actually pretty crappy.

B.) Hong Kong is a very small nation propped up by a bunch of larger nations. That being said, yes-I encourage every libertarian to move there, but I warn them: There is such a thing as critical mass.

Actually, it wasn't crappy. It was a prospering country that was better than most of the other countries at time. You can't judge past by modern standards.

There are plenty of dystopias ruled by the rich. Some people even say that the US is one today.

But actually, most of my disagreements with Ron Paul are things like getting out of the United Nations, or making the states MORE powerful, not less. I don't trust my state government, I trust it less than I do the federal government. Don't get me started on how little I trust my county and city governments.

edited 21st May '11 2:14:40 PM by blueharp

A healthy economy does not constitute a healthy society. If all you want is to have the biggest net GDP, without any care for cost of living, a Corporatist state is A-OK.

Besides-you're using a double standard. You say "We were better than other countries at the time," but other countries have since changed their standards, but you want to change our standards back to what they were pre-Teddy Roosevelt?

Besides, you're the one that brought it up!

And Blueharp has an excellent point-in practice in the US, the most utterly restrictive anti-freedom laws are all coming from the state governments to begin with. The one exception is the War on Drugs, I'll grant you that, and Ron Paul has that as his single selling point that I'd be willing to sign on to-but I sincerely doubt he'd be able to actually end the War on Drugs to begin with.

For instance: most of the "Crippling business restrictions" that I can think of that might actually be all that crippling are state laws in places like California. Which means libertarians are all for states making the decisions-until the decisions the states are making are ones they disagree with. Then again, Ron Paul isn't running in California, so I'm sure he'd say "California can have its own shitty legislation if it wants."

edited 21st May '11 2:25:04 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Sorry, I'm getting a bit lost in nuances of the USA. Not an expert on it. The thing is - I don't think goverment should regulate society for it to be healthy. If people don't want to change, they won't even if you create thought police. If society is to be healthy, it must undergo gradual changes. I don't think laws will help it. From what I know, the more someone wants to push his vision of healthy society, the more it hurts the worthwile people who like to have their own opinion and don't like being controlled. If we don't let people have their flaws, probably Values Dissonance will make the future generations think of us as control freaks who forced their views on everyone. If we do, maybe they will work it out. After all, why is a politician better at living my life than I am?

Police exist not to make people change but to enforce laws like "don't kill people" and "don't steal shit". Your missing the point. Laws aren't about changing people, but to prevent people from causing harm to others. And I agree that there are plenty of laws we could strip, but it doesn't mean their unneeded.

edited 21st May '11 2:31:46 PM by Alichains

There is a difference between killing someone and having too low black to white ratio in a company. There is a difference between stealing things and telling offensive jokes. I can go on forever but the truth is - many things are unneeded.