Ron Paul, 2012

People who push the vision of people not pushing visions are still pushing a vision. Also: This thread is about Ron Paul, an American Libertarian. Ergo, all discussion of libertarianism in this thread predominantly relies upon understanding how libertarianism functions within the United States. I would recommend you research the US before continuing this discussion any further.

I agree that Libertarianism can be a productive model, but functionally speaking, it has only done well under very limited circumstances. As much as the EU is not Heaven On Earth, it's also not falling to pieces anymore than America is, and America really isn't falling to pieces any moreso than anywhere else is-with the exception of Third World Countries, which don't have far to fall.

It's relevant to say "Well, this model may work here-but not over here" but we're talking specifically about Libertarianism in the US.

^I already addressed this argument.

edited 21st May '11 2:36:26 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Affirmative action exists for a reason. Namely that theres a very real and identifiable tendency in parts of america for race to play a factor in whether you get a job or into a school.

Given how many people I know who are horrible at living their lives, or thinking about others...I don't know that the politicians would necessarily be worse, and at least, they can be held accountable. Individual wise, maybe you can hold them accountable, maybe you can't. Maybe if you let them roam free, they'll do far more harm than the draconian laws you seem to fear so much.

Sorry, but it just seems a difference of perspective.

Let's see, back to Ron Paul...um, how about we pick the things we like about him.

I support him on ending the Drug War*

edited 21st May '11 2:40:36 PM by blueharp

I'm against censorship and I do see it as something that can go away. But basic PC is just called being polite.

Whoah, ninja'd

edited 21st May '11 2:38:58 PM by Alichains

You should learn about EU though. It might be starting to fall apart, given that their redistributive system is so complex that they are finding ways to do minor things without breaking it apart. One of the most famous cases was officially proclaiming that snail is a fish so that snail farms could get some refund

Don't forget that black communities are partially to blame here too, as getting education is often seen as 'playing white' and frowned upon as such

It's MY life and I want to live it. Even if they can do it as good as I can, it's still mine. They can do what they want with their lives but they should live me alone

Being polite shouldn't be enforced by goverment

edited 21st May '11 2:42:55 PM by nzm1536

Society doesn't work that way. You're happy to go to Mc Donalds, which can only function because the rank and file drones that they underpay are intelligent enough to operate a cash register, because there exists such a thing as public schools. NO ONE goes without benefiting from the fruits of society and that means, yes, everyone gets to pay in. You can argue that things are disproportionate, but every time I hear someone going off on "They should just leave me alone!" I want to gag.

If you think I'm straw manning you, start talking about specific regulations you disagree with, instead of throwing around vague crap about government infringing on the individual.

edited 21st May '11 2:43:00 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Your never going to be left alone. Even in a Libertarian society, you will never be left alone. Ever. It's not an option. If it's not the Government, it's Facebook.

edited 21st May '11 2:42:00 PM by Alichains

The problem is not you living your life, it's how your life intrudes on others. You are not, to the best of my knowledge, an island, and most every law I know deals with people's interactions with others, not with their personal lives or beliefs.

And yes, there is a significant difference between you being able to choose not to go into a store, and you choosing who gets to come into your store.

edited 21st May '11 2:42:26 PM by blueharp

[double post deleted]

edited 21st May '11 2:44:50 PM by nzm1536

Facebook doesn't threaten me with prison if I don't act the way they like

Of course I am not an island, what does it mean? Of course I interact with others. What does it change? Unless I abuse the others (physically or mentally) it shouldn't bother the govs

What is so universally different about prison? If there's one guy in town who has all the food, if you don't play by his rules, you starve to death. Power is power-detention is just a specific manner of enforcing that power. The government isn't any more or less scary than any other agency with power, it's just the visibility of it's exercise of said power.

How does one person with food in a town exist in modern days? How do you imagine a food monopoly in modern world, especially free market? What kind of world do you live in?

It's an analogy to demonstrate there's nothing significant about prison.

Which is a pretty dumb argument, because it's like 'There's nothing wrong with goverment doing bad things because everyone can do bad things'

I agree, that's not a great analogy.

At any rate, Facebook may not throw you in prison, but they may sell your information to anyone and not tell you if they can get away with it. Are you sure that's better?

edited 21st May '11 2:55:57 PM by Alichains

Here's the problem, just because you think you aren't abusing others doesn't mean you aren't abusing others.

Happens a lot really. And you can bet Facebook would be glad to abuse and exploit you, some feel they do already. I know I do. I would shut them down in a heartbeat if I could.

No, I'm saying "There is nothing MORE wrong about the Government being able to ruin your life than having anyone else ruin your life, unless government is simultaneously more likely to ruin your life." And in the US, private industry has usually-not always (we have a few attrocities, usually associated with wars-like internment camps for the Japanese)-been the ones to ruin people's lives, not the US Government.

Individually, plenty of people are detained and it turns out they're innocent. Criminal Justice System is certainly not perfect. But it's better than the alternative-no system at all, or the nonsensical "Private Security" idea that plenty of libertarians over here think is the solution.

I don't put that kind of important information on FB so I don't care if everyone knows my college, e-mail address and that some fucktard posted a stupid quiz on my wall

As I said earlier, I'm not for no regulations at all. I just think we should limit the regulations only to the most necessary ones. Yes, I think many things should be deregulated. Not everything

edited 21st May '11 2:58:01 PM by nzm1536

You have heard of spyware right? Sure you might be computer savvy, but not everyone is.

edited 21st May '11 2:59:34 PM by Alichains

Yeah, I'm not sure what the Facebook thing is bitching about.

The problem is where you have things like online job applications that ask for your Social Security Number to even apply-they're not supposed to be allowed to do that, but because all employers DO do it, anyone who isn't willing to give a SSN for the application basically can't get a job.

Define necessary regulations.

Spyware = crime.

Also, if you want to use the internet responsibly you have to be computer savvy to some extent. Or use help of someone who is. That's the way it works. Simply don't do things if you can't do them

Necessary regulations = protection from physical and mental abuse. That's the most extreme form, I support gradual change though. I'm opposed to war on drugs, affirmative action (but not the equal rights, they are good), war (unless the country is actually in danger), political correctness enforcement, promoting of any ideologies by state, planned regulations of internet etc.

edited 21st May '11 3:02:54 PM by nzm1536

x5

Well, I consider what Facebook does to be quite reprehensible. What you do on Facebook is not the root of the problem I have with it.

And good luck with getting everybody in the Internet to be computer savvy. I'd rather regulate the facilitators of the abuse than try to solve that problem.

edited 21st May '11 3:02:28 PM by blueharp

@NZM: "Playing white" kinda glosses over the problem.

That happens in EVERY poor community. Its a noted psychological construct. People have a tendency to celebrate their own social condition instead of pushing out of it via deluding themselves into thinking its better to be where they are than be something "other". This is why also poor white communities shun education, because getting educated means you're "acting better than other people"

What does it change? Nothing. It means that 'underpriviledged' communities shelter themselves from the opportuinites