Options

Ron Paul, The Conspiracy '08

17810121362

Posts

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    About the food regulation thing, lawsuits and liability would still exist as a deterrence. I haven't seen anything from the libertarian front, and definitely not Paul, that would suggest that they would do away with the Judiciary. For example, I think I saw in some of the Ron Paul healthcare material that he voted against some of the liability restrictions.

    That wouldn't get rid of violations that would be hard to find or place blame, but it would give pause to those who would permit food poisoning.

    Litigiousness doesn't seem like that great of a public safety net to rely on. Plus it would likely be more stifling to advancement and innovation than the FDA could possibly be.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I thought we solved this fucking debate 100 years ago.

    You're misunderstanding the issue that is being debated (at least by me).

    I believe that the government does and should have a role in deciding many things about our everyday lives- what we can and cannot do, eat, take, etc.

    Then you aren't a fucking libertarian and you should stop carrying water for one!

    Ron Paul believes in that shit. Oh he might conceal it, but you can see it in his eyes- that mad gleam, the twisted dream of a vanished government.

    What I don't think you get is that you're not really on the wrong side of the debate in the substance of your posts- you're just talking about oversight, sensible construction of federal regulations and agencies, etc. What you don't realize is that you've been misled as to whose side that puts you on.

    It puts you on the "government is good" side, which wants the government run well- neither big, nor small, but juuuust right. It doesn't put you on the "government is bad" side, which wants a government as small as possible. Libertarianism is about the smallest possible government.

    We've had that. It sucked.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I thought we solved this fucking debate 100 years ago.

    You're misunderstanding the issue that is being debated (at least by me).

    I believe that the government does and should have a role in deciding many things about our everyday lives- what we can and cannot do, eat, take, etc.

    Then you aren't a fucking libertarian and you should stop carrying water for one!

    Carrying water? What is this idiom?

    As I understand the Libertarian party, it is, like all political parties, a spectrum ranging from one range of beliefs to another. Some believe that roads should be private, the FDA should be eliminated, taxes should be voluntary, etc.

    On the other end of the spectrum I've always just seen Libertarians as democrats except for: they don't want to be forced into participating in certain economic programs.

    Loose Libertarian: government, go fuck a goat.
    Tight Libertarian: government, still go fuck a goat socially, but you can make sure I don't die or get lost or anything... plus, make charity voluntary.

    I am not a registered Libertarian, though, and I'm willing to concede that my understanding of the party may be transparent.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Goddamn, it's interesting to see something I wrote a month ago finally spur an actual discussion. Since other people have already defended a lot of the major points I made, here are the rest. Spoiler tag used to avoid huge blocks of text:
    Talous wrote: »
    1) Ron Paul currently has the most annoying supporters on the internet, by far.

    This was nearly all personal opinion. I'm going to delete all of the *'s that were firm opinion and generally baseless.

    2) Ron Paul would make a horrible president.

    * Ron Paul is not a consensus builder. By any means.

    Most would agree that this is true. So do I.

    * Ron Paul has stated that he will gut a lot of our nations most important programs. He's the one presidential candidate who would have made Bush's performance during Katrina look good.

    You place a lot of value on these programs that have utterly failed to protect our country (Total Failure on 9/11), provide domestic aid (miserable Katrina response), and an government education system that fails our children. Why do we need to keep failed programs (and have the same people run them)?

    * Ron Paul is completely indifferent to the concerns of his constituents. Blacks being denied the right to vote and sit in the front seat of the bus? Screw 'em.

    He was actually one of four or five candidates to go to PBS's debate that was held with a primarily black audience. Meanwhile Mitt Romney was at an IHOP and the other 'top tiers' thought they had more important places to be. Sounds like you're trying to smear Ron Paul? I have no idea why. As far as the Civil War is concerned, he said that we should have paid for the release of all of the slaves like every other civilized nation did.

    * Ron Paul has stated that he will freely exercise his veto power. Right now, people are frustrated by congress because they're not doing more, and Ron Paul will make it even tougher. The democrats can't even pull in enough votes to beat the fillibuster, much less a veto.

    Who's to say he won't support the democrats on most of their issues so long as their constitutional?

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wm1Ln3_keEE


    3) Ron Paul has never proven himself as a leader.

    * The man has served ten tems in congress. What has he actually accomplished in all that that time? Be specific.
    * The man can't even run an 8 page newsletter. What makes you think he can run an entire country?

    http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

    Read that house.gov Bio and tell me again that he has a weak service record (weaker than Hillary's or Obama's or McCain.


    5) Ron Paul is a hypocrite

    * He claims that he wants to treat gay people and straight people exactly the same in the military, while also claiming that gays should not be allowed to serve openly. Please resolve how both statements can be true.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE According to quite a few Christians he's apparently not strong enough on this issue.

    This is what he has said.

    * Ron Paul argues that there is a war on Christianity, and that this should be a robustly Christian Nation.

    Paul on Evangelicals: http://youtube.com/watch?v=D1kDMtRfJso

    Ron Paul on enforcing values to 'Value Voters' (hint: He tells them the opposite of want they want to hear): http://youtube.com/watch?v=WRi8tswSkB4

    On Abortion Ron Paul (after Hunter) is for letting states and communities decide what is right for them:
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...ef=videosearch

    * Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, and he claims that the constitution is replete with references to god. Wait, what?

    So what? The founding fathers were Diests. The mentioning of God in the constitution does not necessarily change interpretation.

    * Ron Paul has written earmarks for items that benefit his own state, for things that definitely are not explicitly mentioned in the constitution (e.g., subsidies for the local shrimp industry).

    Ron Paul on Earmarks:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

    6) Ron Paul is a racist

    * Already been covered.

    Who wrote this shit? Does Bill O'Reilly frequent the fucking PA forums all of the sudden?

    7) Ron Paul is an ideologue who's out of line with mainstream America

    * Ron Paul's top priorities are not in line with the hot button issues of the next election, with the exception of Iraq. We want healthcare, not a chance to dismantle the federal reserve.
    * Ron Paul's views on the top issues, with the exception of Iraq, are not in line with America. Check pollingreport.com for examples.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=JXfDHXpP87o Even Alan Greenspan agrees that we might not need the central bank anymore. Maybe it's the ideologues who are making mainstream America out of touch with reality. As far as health care, Americans don't always know what's in their own best interest. No competition in health care isn't necessarily good. Right now the government is responsible for the state of health care by the way it sticks it's fingers into it. Last night Ron Paul brought up the very valid point that the health industry is the only one in which advances in technology have not brought the cost down.

    Watch Ron Paul from the debate last night: http://youtube.com/watch?v=34AMCPcnu50


    8) Honestly, just like 9/11 was the best thing to happen to Bush, Bush was pretty much the best thing to happen to Ron Paul. If Bush had never been president, if the country never went to Iraq and the PATRIOT Act and illegal wiretapping had never occurred, then what exactly would Ron Paul have to campaign on? Be honest.

    Well those are actually huge issues. However Ron Paul's changes would be widespread, the greatest change would be decreasing the size of government. I'll leave it to you to do the research as a free-thinking citizen.

    If you watch these videos and research more on your own without listening to demagogues, you will see how rational Ron Paul indeed is. Please stop your ridiculous smearing. I bet most of this stems from your first point on his annoying followers? Who gives a shit? It's the message that counts ladies and gentlemen.
    titmouse wrote: »
    If only there wasn't a group of people who do not have readily available access to most forms of media. People would need to know that the companies serve them human fingers. Luckily for us, there is no way for a company to cover up any scandal that might be brewing. After all, huge corporations can't afford to influence the few media companies.

    1) Yes. Funny how people make statements of opinion about people in an election thread. Perhaps you can name another group of supporters, who are more rabid than the Rondroids are?

    2) So where was he during at the NAACP debate? And I'm sure that many black people would be happy to hear that Ron Paul might oppose the voting rights act and the civil rights act, but the fact that he made a speech to a black audience more than makes up for it.

    "Who's to say he won't support the democrats on most of their issues so long as their constitutional?"

    What Ron Paul considers constitutional is vastly different from what the vast majority of Americans consider constitutional, including the supreme court of the United States of America.

    3) I asked you to be specific about what he actually accomplished. Please provide a direct response on what I should focus on, rather than a generic link. I see a few votes and a few criticisms, but no actual accomplishments. OTOH, it wouldn't be too hard to go through Obama's or Clinton's wikipedia entry and find examples of significant bills that they sponsored or co-sponsored that actually managed to pass.

    5) I asked you how both statements could both be true. You avoided the question entirely. You seem to be employing a tactic common among the Rondroids. I bring up a specific point and ask you to address it. In response, you simply cite a speech/video clip where Ron Paul speaks about the general subject matter while grinning "Isn't that nice?" It's the equivalent of asking a Bush supporter why Bush did nothing when he got the Bin Laden memo, and having him respond by citing a generic video clip of "George Bush speaks out against Terrorism."

    "So what? The founding fathers were Diests. The mentioning of God in the constitution does not necessarily change interpretation. "

    There is no mention of God in the constitution.

    6) Read the thread. The OP started off as a Ron Paul supporter who begrudingly admitted that Ron Paul's racist history was becoming harder and harder to defend as the thread went on.

    7) Wow, a republican/objectivist agrees with Ron Paul on something? That is sure to prove that the idea is mainstream! Moreover, you make a contradictory point. You insist that "Americans don't always know what's in their own best interest" in order to dismantle the very basis of democratic process, while also insisting that we don't need government regulation because the free market will provide all of the same advantages on their own.

    8) Yeah for vague and abstract campaign slogans.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    What I don't think you get is that you're not really on the wrong side of the debate in the substance of your posts- you're just talking about oversight, sensible construction of federal regulations and agencies, etc. What you don't realize is that you've been misled as to whose side that puts you on.

    This is possible.

    I am adamant, though, that my idea of 'just right' seems to be comprised of government being somewhat smaller than PA's idea of 'just right'.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    QuazarQuazar Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I like how every libertarian-based thread always ends up talking about the whole FDA thing. I don't think Ron Paul is crazy about that issue. I think he cares more about privacy rights, foreign policy, and the constitution than he does the FDA and Department of Education. I'm not defending him, I'm just saying we all know the FDA is a good thing. We all know if he were elected the FDA wouldn't be done away with. It's just something people grab onto so they can bash libertarians into the ground and dismiss their ideas as "stuff from the 1800s". I think a more effective thing to discuss would be the importance of the constitution in the modern world, as that seems to be a much more important issue to libertarians than agencies like the FDA.

    Quazar on
    Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
    atl7hahahazo7.png
    XBL: QuazarX
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I thought we solved this fucking debate 100 years ago.

    You're misunderstanding the issue that is being debated (at least by me).

    I believe that the government does and should have a role in deciding many things about our everyday lives- what we can and cannot do, eat, take, etc.

    Then you aren't a fucking libertarian and you should stop carrying water for one!

    Carrying water? What is this idiom?

    As I understand the Libertarian party, it is, like all political parties, a spectrum ranging from one range of beliefs to another. Some believe that roads should be private, the FDA should be eliminated, taxes should be voluntary, etc.

    No, Libertarianism is on the far right edge of the ur-spectrum that is American politics. It's already an extremist position- there is likely a continuum within Libertarianism, but it's still waaaaay out there.
    On the other end of the spectrum I've always just seen Libertarians as democrats except for: they don't want to be forced into participating in certain economic programs.

    That's simplistic. Libertarians are basically fiscal conservatives of a bygone age. Much of the democratic ideology rests on social services and programs (i.e., "Social Democracy") and has nothing in common with Libertarianism except for the occasional intersection on personal rights to bump uglies in the manner of your choice.
    I am not a registered Libertarian, though, and I'm willing to concede that my understanding of the party may be transparent.

    It, frankly, sucks. You've been making "issues of execution" arguments. Libertarianism is fundamentally rooted in the issue of "rightness." Many might even acknowledge that the government does us a lot of good, but they are ideologically opposed to government programs, even successful and valuable ones.

    No one disagrees that if you're going to establish an FDA or a DOE or a national health care plan, you have to do it right. Everyone agrees that government programs can be poorly managed and inefficient. The disagreement is over whether or not it should be done at all.

    Libertarians might argue that government programs never work or do any good, but they'd be lying. The issue is over the basic ideological position that "All taxation is theft, minimum possible taxation to avoid anarchy is the only right course of action."

    Which necessarily demands a minimal, tiny government that only performs three functions- basic infrastructure (roads), defense (armies), and rule of law. No more.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    I thought we solved this fucking debate 100 years ago.

    You're misunderstanding the issue that is being debated (at least by me).

    I believe that the government does and should have a role in deciding many things about our everyday lives- what we can and cannot do, eat, take, etc.

    Then you aren't a fucking libertarian and you should stop carrying water for one!

    Carrying water? What is this idiom?

    As I understand the Libertarian party, it is, like all political parties, a spectrum ranging from one range of beliefs to another. Some believe that roads should be private, the FDA should be eliminated, taxes should be voluntary, etc.

    On the other end of the spectrum I've always just seen Libertarians as democrats except for: they don't want to be forced into participating in certain economic programs.

    Loose Libertarian: government, go fuck a goat.
    Tight Libertarian: government, still go fuck a goat socially, but you can make sure I don't die or get lost or anything... plus, make charity voluntary.

    I am not a registered Libertarian, though, and I'm willing to concede that my understanding of the party may be transparent.

    The Libertarian party is pretty dogmatic and about as broad a spectrum as Greenpeace or PETA. You might consider yourself a small L libertarian, but that would still be a fairly foolish descriptor (as they all are) because it isn't all that telling and links you with people who are actively poisoning wells. You could say that you're socially libertarian, or a 'leftist' libertarian, or any other means of couching the term, but it still isn't all that descriptive. The best bet would be to say you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative or a 'pay-as-you-go liberal' under the original intention of it.

    moniker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Quazar wrote: »
    I like how every libertarian-based thread always ends up talking about the whole FDA thing. I don't think Ron Paul is crazy about that issue. I think he cares more about privacy rights, foreign policy, and the constitution than he does the FDA and Department of Education. I'm not defending him, I'm just saying we all know the FDA is a good thing. We all know if he were elected the FDA wouldn't be done away with. It's just something people grab onto so they can bash libertarians into the ground and dismiss their ideas as "stuff from the 1800s". I think a more effective thing to discuss would be the importance of the constitution in the modern world, as that seems to be a much more important issue to libertarians than agencies like the FDA.

    All of the Dem's are stumping with the 'restore rights and abloo bloo bloo' so that isn't really relegated strictly to Ron Paul. Granted I don't have much faith in Hillary's claims what with Billy Boy's record on civil liberties and such, but who knows.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    The best bet would be to say you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative or a 'pay-as-you-go liberal' under the original intention of it.

    Yes, well said. Fiscal conservatives (a dying breed, it seems) tend to want the following:

    1. Low taxes. (But not minimal taxes, and definitely not regressive taxes)
    2. Low, controllable deficits.
    3. As little government debt as possible.
    4. Physical infastructure- communications, roads, etc.

    Your modern, postindustrial, globalized ones add in...

    4. No trade barriers.
    5. Social infastructure- education and healthcare, mostly, as these directly feed into the growth of a postindustrial economy.

    EDIT: Basically, a fiscal conservative would be happy with all manner of government programs so long as debt didn't pile up and taxes were low.

    Professor Phobos on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    The best bet would be to say you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative or a 'pay-as-you-go liberal' under the original intention of it.

    I guess that makes sense.

    The way I'd describe my views (and not having matched myself with a party, I haven't really fleshed them out fully) is: I support the institution of government because it protects us from the factors that are impediments to the human condition (life and liberty). I can't be safe and free if people are mugging me, raping me, poisoning me, cheating me, etc.

    I think the point where I draw the line is the capability for a large amount of danger. For example, I believe that individuals should not be able to maintain nuclear missile silos. My reasoning is that if it came down to it the government could not be reasonably certain of preventing such an installation from hurting the country terribly. Knives, for example, are a reasonable threat in that the government and its commensurate departments (the police and home guard of the military) would be capable of resolving that threat with little danger to the society. We should be able to have knives. If a new flavor of Gatorade is determined to cause headaches, the product should be left available because that's a reasonable risk that can be made incumbent upon the purchaser.

    That's sort of rambling, but I think I fall enough on the side of small government to not completely disqualify Paul from getting my vote.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    If a new flavor of Gatorade is determined to cause headaches, the product should be left available because that's a reasonable risk that can be made incumbent upon the purchaser.

    And then people who drink it accidentally will sue the company, and the (tax-funded) court system's time will be wasted with class action after class action. (Tax-funded) Hospitals will be full of worried parents with their mystery-headache-afflicted kids. Etc, etc, etc.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    About the food regulation thing, lawsuits and liability would still exist as a deterrence. I haven't seen anything from the libertarian front, and definitely not Paul, that would suggest that they would do away with the Judiciary. For example, I think I saw in some of the Ron Paul healthcare material that he voted against some of the liability restrictions.

    That wouldn't get rid of violations that would be hard to find or place blame, but it would give pause to those who would permit food poisoning.
    Good, good. We'll just wait for someone to die before anything gets done. And that's when it'll stop immediately, cause the legal system is a paragon of speed and efficiency.
    And that would basically legalize carcinogens, as long as they took long enough to cause cancer.

    ...

    Are you serious? Really? Do you think that the deterrence effects of law are impotent? That the threat of being held liable for millions of dollars or even being jailed for negligence would do nothing to prevent malfeasance?

    You are supposed to be the "reality" side of the argument. Do I really need to remind you of the reality of the massive tobacco lawsuits or, more aptly, asbestos litigation? Don't forget to call the law offices of James Sokolove.
    moniker wrote: »
    Litigiousness doesn't seem like that great of a public safety net to rely on. Plus it would likely be more stifling to advancement and innovation than the FDA could possibly be.

    I'm not a Libertarian, and I personally think that gutting these regulatory agencies completely would be a bad idea. However, the notion that it would resemble anarchy when only the proactive executive regulation was curtailed and not the laws and jurisprudence regarding negligence seems patently ridiculous to me.

    Savant on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Zsetrek wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    If a new flavor of Gatorade is determined to cause headaches, the product should be left available because that's a reasonable risk that can be made incumbent upon the purchaser.

    And then people who drink it accidentally will sue the company, and the (tax-funded) court system's time will be wasted with class action after class action. (Tax-funded) Hospitals will be full of worried parents with their mystery-headache-afflicted kids. Etc, etc, etc.

    I understand that, but with a more efficient judicial system such things could be summarily dismissed. Once the first case of the type is levied and overruled, precedent will be established. I think the problems listed are slightly hyperbolic.

    I don't think the government should quash every single thing that could contribute to a problem in society.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu, based on that description, you could fall into any one of a number of camps. Do you believe that economic freedoms should trump all other freedoms? Are tax cuts and the elimination of government the most important thing?

    Or are the social freedoms (such as keeping the government from doing warrantless wiretaps or from banning gay marriage or from banning abortion) more important?

    If it's the former, you're probably a Libertarian. If it's the latter, you're probably closer to a Democrat ("civil libertarian" being probably the most apropos term for your social stances).

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    As I understand the Libertarian party, it is, like all political parties, a spectrum ranging from one range of beliefs to another. Some believe that roads should be private, the FDA should be eliminated, taxes should be voluntary, etc.

    On the other end of the spectrum I've always just seen Libertarians as democrats except for: they don't want to be forced into participating in certain economic programs.

    We've covered this in a previous thread. If you want to be a libertarian and consider yourself a member of the libertarian party, then you need to have beliefs that can actually distinguish yourself from the other two parties. I mean, if you told a republican or a democrat "I believe that we should get rid of such and such destructive program," or "I think that we should cut such and such unnecessary taxes," then chances are that they would agree with you on the general premise that if a tax/program is truly unnecessary, then we should be willing to cut it.

    In order for you to be able to proclaim yourself a libertarian, you need to add something unique to your POV. And surprise, surprise, but "something unique" usually comes across as crazy. It's something that the other parties could adopt, but which they don't want to, because they would end up looking fucking insane. Like insisting that we should get rid of the FDA, or that private charity would have prevented Katrina.

    BTW, I completely disagree with your assessment that libertarians are typically democrats. The problem is that most libertarians is that they believe in less taxes and they support things like gay marriage. The problem is that for the average libertarian, the chances that they will have to pay taxes in the near future is pretty high, where as the chance that they will need a gay marriage in the near future is relatively slim. So which one do they give the higher priority to?

    Pretty much the only point of substantial disagreement between libertarians and republicans is the war in Iraq. But even then, that only occured after Iraq proved to be a quagmire. Early on, just about every libertarian I spoke to was all for the war, as one of the few cases where government intervention was necessary in order to keep us safe. Guys like Matt Stone and Trey Parker had no problem making movies like "Team America" to express their support.
    What about the social side?

    The Libertarian Party has a cute little test that purports to divide American politics into four quadrants. There's the economic dimension (where libertarians ally with conservatives) and the social dimension (where libertarians ally with liberals).

    I think the diagram is seriously misleading, because visually it gives equal importance to both dimensions. And when the rubber hits the road, libertarians almost always go with the economic dimension.

    The libertarian philosopher always starts with property rights. Libertarianism arose in opposition to the New Deal, not to Prohibition. The libertarian voter is chiefly exercised over taxes, regulation, and social programs; the libertarian wing of the Republican party has, for forty years, gone along with the war on drugs, corporate welfare, establishment of dictatorships abroad, and an alliance with theocrats. Christian libertarians like Ron Paul want God in the public schools and are happy to have the government forbid abortion and gay marriage. I never saw the libertarians objecting to Bush Sr. mocking the protection of civil rights, or to Ken Starr's government inquiry into politicians' sex lives. On the Cato Institute's list of recent books, I count 1 of 19 dealing with an issue on which libertarians and liberals tend to agree, and that was on foreign policy (specifically, the Iraq war).

    If this is changing, as Bush's never-ending "War on Terror" expands the powers of government, demonizes dissent, and enmeshes the country in military crusades and nation-building, as the Republicans push to remove the checks and balances that remain in our government system-- if libertarians come to realize that Republicans and not Democrats are the greater threat to liberty-- I'd be delighted.

    But for that, you know, you have to vote against Bush. A belief in social liberties means little if you vote for a party that clearly intends to restrict them.

    For the purposes of my critique, however, the social side of libertarianism is irrelevant. A libertarian and I might actually agree to legalize drugs, let people marry whoever they like, and repeal the Patriot Act. But this has nothing to do with whether robber baron capitalism is a good thing.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I don't believe I was arguing against all regulation in any form, and neither is congressman Paul.

    "I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements."

    -- Ron Paul's official campaign website under "Health Freedom"

    Anyhow, my mind is not entirely made up on the issue. But it's not like the FDA has been totally free of criticism. My point with this is only to point out that it is not a perfect organization (not that anyone in particular said it was).

    I couldn't find any videos where Ron Paul says he would abolish the FDA and states reasoning for it, but they're probably out there. Maybe someone could direct me.

    Edit: It looks like we've stopped talking about the FDA a page or so ago, but anyway...

    In summary, I believe Quazar is correct

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    About the food regulation thing, lawsuits and liability would still exist as a deterrence. I haven't seen anything from the libertarian front, and definitely not Paul, that would suggest that they would do away with the Judiciary. For example, I think I saw in some of the Ron Paul healthcare material that he voted against some of the liability restrictions.

    That wouldn't get rid of violations that would be hard to find or place blame, but it would give pause to those who would permit food poisoning.
    Good, good. We'll just wait for someone to die before anything gets done. And that's when it'll stop immediately, cause the legal system is a paragon of speed and efficiency.
    And that would basically legalize carcinogens, as long as they took long enough to cause cancer.
    ...

    Are you serious? Really? Do you think that the deterrence effects of law are impotent? That the threat of being held liable for millions of dollars or even being jailed for negligence would do nothing to prevent malfeasance?

    You are supposed to be the "reality" side of the argument. Do I really need to remind you of the reality of the massive tobacco lawsuits or, more aptly, asbestos litigation? Don't forget to call the law offices of James Sokolove.
    You realize that you cannot be jailed as a result of a lawsuit, right?

    And that people do not suffer institutional consequences? If I'm the most recent CEO of CancerFoods Inc., I realize that, statistically speaking, I'm not going to be around in 15 years (like, really,really not going to be around), so why would I care if, in 30 years, it's discovered that my company gave a bunch of people cancer, and is now liable for a shitload of wrongful deaths? That was 4 companies ago for me.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Organichu, based on that description, you could fall into any one of a number of camps. Do you believe that economic freedoms should trump all other freedoms? Are tax cuts and the elimination of government the most important thing?

    Or are the social freedoms (such as keeping the government from doing warrantless wiretaps or from banning gay marriage or from banning abortion) more important?

    I'm not really sure that I can divorce the two and pick a preference. I care more about being forced to contribute 88% of my income to SS than I do about not being allowed to jump rope. However, I care more about being allowed to date a black girl than being forced to do at least 1% of my annual business with people from poor countries.

    I'm not sure one really sticks out in my head more than the other.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    QuazarQuazar Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    The best bet would be to say you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative or a 'pay-as-you-go liberal' under the original intention of it.

    Yes, well said. Fiscal conservatives (a dying breed, it seems) tend to want the following:

    1. Low taxes. (But not minimal taxes, and definitely not regressive taxes)
    2. Low, controllable deficits.
    3. As little government debt as possible.
    4. Physical infastructure- communications, roads, etc.

    Your modern, postindustrial, globalized ones add in...

    4. No trade barriers.
    5. Social infastructure- education and healthcare, mostly, as these directly feed into the growth of a postindustrial economy.
    I would likely fall into that category too, which is why no candidate seems right for me. I need somebody who:

    Fiscally:
    - Wants to run government spending like a well-run business.
    - Keeps taxes as low as they can while still providing reasonable safety and security for the population and moderate considerations of future needs (FDA, Military, NASA, etc.)
    - Aims to reduce American dependence on interest-based loans.
    - Wants to abolish social security (people should save for their own retirement now-a-days. The government doesn't need to FORCE people to save money)
    - Desires a more effective welfare system (showing people how to become more successful rather than just throwing money at them)

    Socially:
    - Is empathic. (gay rights, civil rights, immigration, etc.)
    - Wants to better education at the state level.
    - Encourages states to decide the healthcare issue for themselves without having a national system.
    - Understands that "American culture" and "World culture" are melding, and that we must take the world into account when making social decisions, not just the nation.
    - Understands the need to improve environmental conditions.
    - Wants to spur the space program back into high gear.
    - Respects privacy rights (no patriot act-esque policies)

    I mean really, is there any candidate that fits that bill? At all?

    Quazar on
    Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
    atl7hahahazo7.png
    XBL: QuazarX
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Organichu, based on that description, you could fall into any one of a number of camps. Do you believe that economic freedoms should trump all other freedoms? Are tax cuts and the elimination of government the most important thing?

    Or are the social freedoms (such as keeping the government from doing warrantless wiretaps or from banning gay marriage or from banning abortion) more important?

    If it's the former, you're probably a Libertarian. If it's the latter, you're probably closer to a Democrat ("civil libertarian" being probably the most apropos term for your social stances).

    There are any number of specific Republicans as well, actually. (I am not going to get over Blago being governor over Judy Baar Topinka until he quits being a giant douche and the state isn't in a constant cycle of crisis-bandage-crisis.) It just isn't really a part of the GOP party platform anymore. That seems almost exclusively to be God, gays, and guns for the last few cycles. Which is too bad, really. I like having good options between candidates.

    moniker on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Thinatos wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    Thinatos wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    About the food regulation thing, lawsuits and liability would still exist as a deterrence. I haven't seen anything from the libertarian front, and definitely not Paul, that would suggest that they would do away with the Judiciary. For example, I think I saw in some of the Ron Paul healthcare material that he voted against some of the liability restrictions.

    That wouldn't get rid of violations that would be hard to find or place blame, but it would give pause to those who would permit food poisoning.
    Good, good. We'll just wait for someone to die before anything gets done. And that's when it'll stop immediately, cause the legal system is a paragon of speed and efficiency.
    And that would basically legalize carcinogens, as long as they took long enough to cause cancer.
    ...

    Are you serious? Really? Do you think that the deterrence effects of law are impotent? That the threat of being held liable for millions of dollars or even being jailed for negligence would do nothing to prevent malfeasance?

    You are supposed to be the "reality" side of the argument. Do I really need to remind you of the reality of the massive tobacco lawsuits or, more aptly, asbestos litigation? Don't forget to call the law offices of James Sokolove.
    You realize that you cannot be jailed as a result of a lawsuit, right?

    And that people do not suffer institutional consequences? If I'm the most recent CEO of CancerFoods Inc., I realize that, statistically speaking, I'm not going to be around in 15 years (like, really,really not going to be around), so why would I care if, in 30 years, it's discovered that my company gave a bunch of people cancer, and is now liable for a shitload of wrongful deaths? That was 4 companies ago for me.

    There is such thing as criminal negligence, and the judicial can handle criminal law just fine. It doesn't have to just be lawsuits when you are talking about gross violations.

    Your example depends upon the regulatory body actively regulating and being aware of whatever the carcinogen is. If not, then it provides no protection beyond what is available through common law. In the case that it is a known agent, then the 30 year timeframe seems to be at least a bit of a stretch.

    I'm not for the abolishment of these institutions, so I do admit that there would most likely be a substantial difference in how fast violations are handled with proactive regulation for known causes of harm. But there is still quite a bit of deterrence on the back end of the process.

    Savant on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    I believe the point is that some are concerned with the future value of our currency. Since the dollar is basically an IOU (and not backed only by trust in the US government), we don't know where it's going to be going. Right now it's obviously going down. Eventually you could need two dollars to buy that candy bar, and you may be getting paid the same in the workplace.
    And eventually my dollar could be worth two dollars but my debt could be the same. With a currency backed by gold there is nothing for the worth of the dollar to go but up and that would be worse for poorer people. Companies eventually have to change their wages to meet the cost of living. Lenders don't need to do that.

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

    You don't have to support the end conclusion, but the first 15 parts are pretty entertaining.

    I find it amusing how Rondroids will do whatever they can to avoid the simple idea of debt. I mean, when your entire theory of economics falls because of an accepted and necessary practice that happens every friggin day, and which helps to stimulate the economy in general, then you have a massive problem.

    The last time I brought this up, the Rondroid tried to insist that everyone who took out loans was being financially irresponsible, and that it wasn't the government's responsibility to encourage irresponsibility. Somehow, the idea of student loans, mortages, venture capitalism, and simply not being born rich was completely foreign to them.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited October 2007
    Pretty much the only point of substantial disagreement between libertarians and republicans is the war in Iraq. But even then, that only occured after Iraq proved to be a quagmire. Early on, just about every libertarian I spoke to was all for the war, as one of the few cases where government intervention was necessary in order to keep us safe. Guys like Matt Stone and Trey Parker had no problem making movies like "Team America" to express their support.

    How so?O_o Don't Republicans suggest that social ethics should be strictly controlled via an ethical externality? i.e. the Bible or 'old school ethics' etc. should determine what is and is not allowed socially?

    Almost every self-proclaimed Libertarian I've ever met has said that social behavior should not be legislated. That seems to be a pretty severe disparity.

    Organichu on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    Pretty much the only point of substantial disagreement between libertarians and republicans is the war in Iraq. But even then, that only occured after Iraq proved to be a quagmire. Early on, just about every libertarian I spoke to was all for the war, as one of the few cases where government intervention was necessary in order to keep us safe. Guys like Matt Stone and Trey Parker had no problem making movies like "Team America" to express their support.

    How so?O_o Don't Republicans suggest that social ethics should be strictly controlled via an ethical externality? i.e. the Bible or 'old school ethics' etc. should determine what is and is not allowed socially?

    Almost every self-proclaimed Libertarian I've ever met has said that social behavior should not be legislated. That seems to be a pretty severe disparity.

    They're libertarians who sell out the social liberties aspect in return for tax cuts.

    moniker on
  • Options
    Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Seriously I understand the worship of the founding fathers. They did create the first Democratic Republic in modern times. They enshrined a lot of basic human freedoms and tried the best way they knew how to deal with the issues of the day. They failed in some parts(slavery) and succseded in others(democracy).

    BUT they are not some all knowing collective whose wisdom should be followed to the letter! I mean we are talking about the FDA, wich came about as people learn how disease spread and how you stuff in your food can kill you. The Founding Fathers had none of this information. They though disease came about as a result of bad vapours FFS!!

    This is just one area where the founding fathers lacked the knowledge to make rational decisions. Things change, new information supersecdes old, goverment has to follow suit in order to keep up.

    The Founding Fathers where cool, all that and a bag of crisps. But FFS they didnt even have a page on Myspace!!

    Kipling217 on
    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Organichu wrote: »
    How so?O_o Don't Republicans suggest that social ethics should be strictly controlled via an ethical externality? i.e. the Bible or 'old school ethics' etc. should determine what is and is not allowed socially?

    Almost every self-proclaimed Libertarian I've ever met has said that social behavior should not be legislated. That seems to be a pretty severe disparity.

    Libertarians generally won't vote for such legislation if it occurred in a direct democracy. However, in a representative democracy, if the guy who promised to cut their taxes wanted to do it, they would be more than willing to turn a blind eye. OTOH, they would not be willing to turn a blind eye if the guy who promised to keep the bible out of the school refused to cut taxes, or attempted to raise taxes.

    See the difference? It's a matter of priorities. If you have a choice between John Kerry, George Bush, or Harry Browne, who do you end up voting for? The vast majority of libertarians ended up voting for Bush, because a $300 tax cut was more important to them than the idea of prisoners being tortured without charge.

    This also highlights the main flaw of the libertarian world view in general. They believe in perfect competition, where all available permutations are readily available, and all of them equally accessible, and they will be free to pick and chose from either. This doesn't happen in the real world. Maybe you want to sugar, but everyone only sells high fructose corn syrup. Maybe you want to buy a cinnamon roll without trans fats in it, but the closest place for that is ten miles away. Maybe Mall A has better department stores, but Mall B has better eletronics stores, and you can only go to one or the other today. The real world is about compromises, and libertarians will generally compromise towards the republicans.

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Seriously I understand the worship of the founding fathers. They did create the first Democratic Republic in modern times. They enshrined a lot of basic human freedoms and tried the best way they knew how to deal with the issues of the day. They failed in some parts(slavery) and succseded in others(democracy).

    BUT they are not some all knowing collective whose wisdom should be followed to the letter! I mean we are talking about the FDA, wich came about as people learn how disease spread and how you stuff in your food can kill you. The Founding Fathers had none of this information. They though disease came about as a result of bad vapours FFS!!

    This is just one area where the founding fathers lacked the knowledge to make rational decisions. Things change, new information supersecdes old, goverment has to follow suit in order to keep up.

    The Founding Fathers where cool, all that and a bag of crisps. But FFS they didnt even have a page on Myspace!!

    If the founding fathers were around today and heard about the potential dangers of climage change, I wonder if they would sit back and reply, "Well gee, all that sounds horrible. But we didn't account for that in the 1700s, so be sure not to do anything to prevent it."

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    If the founding fathers were around today and heard about the potential dangers of climage change, I wonder if they would sit back and reply, "Well gee, all that sounds horrible. But we didn't account for that in the 1700s, so be sure not to do anything to prevent it."

    I agree, but since this thread is about Ron Paul...

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm

    ";... the environment is better protected under private property rights... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property.... Too often, conservatives and libertarians fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, 'Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us.... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute.' So I don't particularly like that method." -- Ron Paul on a radio interview with Dennis Miller

    It's up to you whether or not you disagree with him, obviously. I suppose Ron Paul could be considered to be 'weak on the environment,' at least by the standards of some of the democrats.

    Edit: As far as the other discussion that's going on in this thread -- I think the Republican party and the Democratic party are big-tent parties, and thus it is difficult to define a core set of beliefs. It would sure be nice if we had several candidates running in different parties with clear agendas, but we've had a two party system for a long time, and I don't think it'll change unless something crazy happens like the election of Ron Paul.

    As far as 'founding-father worship' is concerned, Kipling217, I don't believe I put the founding fathers on that high of a pedestal (and I know Jefferson sent eight marines or something close to that to Tripoli). Some of them were slave-owners, and being human, were bigoted in a lot of ways. The constitution was crafted through compromise. But I must say that I find it extremely offensive when people like Alberto Gonzales (who represent our leaders) say (taken from the CNN.com article) "Indeed, Gonzales deemed international law -- which becomes the law of the United States, under our Constitution, when properly ratified by the Senate -- to be "quaint" and outdated when applied to the war on terrorism. To say this, is to say, in effect that the Constitution itself is quaint and outdated." This justifies the suspension of habeas corpus, domestic spying and secret prisons?

    That is why, when Ron Paul talks about things like transparency in government (and he's the only one who does), people like myself find him so appealing.

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    The best bet would be to say you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative or a 'pay-as-you-go liberal' under the original intention of it.

    Yes, well said. Fiscal conservatives (a dying breed, it seems) tend to want the following:

    1. Low taxes. (But not minimal taxes, and definitely not regressive taxes)
    2. Low, controllable deficits.
    3. As little government debt as possible.
    4. Physical infastructure- communications, roads, etc.

    Your modern, postindustrial, globalized ones add in...

    4. No trade barriers.
    5. Social infastructure- education and healthcare, mostly, as these directly feed into the growth of a postindustrial economy.

    EDIT: Basically, a fiscal conservative would be happy with all manner of government programs so long as debt didn't pile up and taxes were low.

    Where can I get me a President like this?

    Duki on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    I don't believe I was arguing against all regulation in any form, and neither is congressman Paul.

    "I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements."

    -- Ron Paul's official campaign website under "Health Freedom"

    Big woop. The notion that something ought to be destroyed rather than repaired when not working properly is what I take issue with, and seems to be a blanket libertarian response to any governmental problem. Not working well enough? Burn it and salt the ground upon which the organisation's HQ rested! Reforms are for suckers!

    Its stupid.

    Also, that argument about the environment being better protected under private ownership is utter tripe, speaking as an environmental scientist. It. Does. Not. Work.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    TalousTalous Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Big woop. The notion that something ought to be destroyed rather than repaired when not working properly is what I take issue with, and seems to be a blanket libertarian response to any governmental problem. Not working well enough? Burn it and salt the ground upon which the organisation's HQ rested! Reforms are for suckers!

    Its stupid.

    Also, that argument about the environment being better protected under private ownership is utter tripe, speaking as an environmental scientist. It. Does. Not. Work.

    Well I've taken a few environmental science courses, and I certainly agree that private sector often does morally reprehensible things to the environment, I kind of wonder what would happen if Ron Paul's policy was made real and energy companies were sued more frequently and easily for pollution on any piece of land that they did not own. I'm guessing such a policy wouldn't help the major world-wide problem that is global warming. I suppose some believe that they should be penalized even for pollution on land that they own, and I do think they have a point when it comes to carbon emissions.

    I think (although I'm not intending to speak for Ron Paul), that he thinks as the prices of gasoline rises, the market will move towards more sustainable living solutions (and I suppose in many cases that is happening, though perhaps not at the speed we'd like). I also think, that Ron Paul believes that once we stop subsidizing big oil companies and defense companies, we will move more quickly towards a more environmentally friendly energy system.

    I don't know whether or not this could happen in reality, but to me it sounds good and relatively painless.

    Regarding the destruction of organizations...

    Ron Paul believes that the 16th amendment (which rescinded Article I's "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.") is fundamentally unconstitutional, and therefore so is the income tax, and therefore so is the IRS. In other words the states would be responsible for taxation. I don't know where a sales tax fits into the equation. If these statistics are anywhere close to correct, then Ron Paul's cutting of the military budget spent on foreign empire would mean incredible savings and the ability to devote this spending to other internal systems. Such is my understanding, anyway.

    I already went into some other organizations in other posts and I need to sleep...

    I think the reason why Ron Paul has a lot of young supporters is related to the fact that the younger they are, the less they have staked and invested in the current state of things. Killing these huge bureaucracies is an incredibly exciting and liberating proposition to some.

    Talous on
    Glampgrotz - Black Orc - Ulthuan TSM
    SS13 Rules Post
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Quazar wrote: »
    Fiscally:
    - Wants to run government spending like a well-run business.

    What the hell does this even mean?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Also, all you people who want your social safety net, and welfare that moves people toward jobs, and money spent on infrastructure, and in general want well-run, efficient government? In the United States?

    Vote Democratic.

    I don't see how this is even really a choice. One party wants to use government to solve public problems, the other is ideologically committed to the idea that it can't, and never will. It amazes me every day that people think they will get responsible, efficient government out of the latter party.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Quazar wrote: »
    Fiscally:
    - Wants to run government spending like a well-run business.

    What the hell does this even mean?

    http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

    False Analogy

    Definition:

    In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.

    Examples:
    1. Employees are like nails. Just as nails must be hit in the head in order to make them work, so must employees.
    2. Government is like business, so just as business must be sensitive primarily to the bottom line, so also must government. (But the objectives of government and business are completely different, so probably they will have to meet different criteria.)

    Schrodinger on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    That is what I was getting at, yes.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Also, all you people who want your social safety net, and welfare that moves people toward jobs, and money spent on infrastructure, and in general want well-run, efficient government? In the United States?

    Vote Democratic.

    I don't see how this is even really a choice. One party wants to use government to solve public problems, the other is ideologically committed to the idea that it can't, and never will. It amazes me every day that people think they will get responsible, efficient government out of the latter party.

    I think the disparity you see in the whole Red State/Blue State divide can be summed up in this argument. The states in the South, Southwest, and Midwest need much less infrastructure, tend to have much lower unemployment rates, and need much less government involvement to function as do Blue States.

    Given that phenomenon, I think we'd really be better off having State or federal offices of Urban and Rural Affairs that set up tax structures and programs that focused on the needs of those blocs of citizenry. It's ridiculous to have blanket taxation policies that affect farmhands in Wisconsin for the same reasons they affect the stockbrokers on Wall Street.

    To have to Big Tent parties to try to serve all of our needs is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. The executive office should be for national interest decisions only, i.e., immigration, military, trade, foreign policy, where the big tree comes from every Christmas.

    Atomika on
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I think you missed my point.

    That being said, though, it isn't really about red/blue state argument. All those red states that "need less government involvement" are net importers of tax dollars, in any case.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    Ron Paul believes that the 16th amendment (which rescinded Article I's "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.") is fundamentally unconstitutional, and therefore so is the income tax, and therefore so is the IRS.

    To say that this statement is idiotic is, well...an understatement. There is no fucking way that an amendment to the Constitution of the United States can, in any way, be unconstitutional. It's just not fucking possible. And if you're going to argue against the doctrine of implicit repeal, well - do you realize how many things would go bye-bye if we didn't have it? I bet that women and minorities would love to hear why they can't vote anymore, for one.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    imbalancedimbalanced Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Talous wrote: »
    Ron Paul believes that the 16th amendment (which rescinded Article I's "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.") is fundamentally unconstitutional, and therefore so is the income tax, and therefore so is the IRS.

    To say that this statement is idiotic is, well...an understatement. There is no fucking way that an amendment to the Constitution of the United States can, in any way, be unconstitutional. It's just not fucking possible. And if you're going to argue against the doctrine of implicit repeal, well - do you realize how many things would go bye-bye if we didn't have it? I bet that women and minorities would love to hear why they can't vote anymore, for one.

    Women and minorities vote? I AM OUTRAGED! :P

    imbalanced on
    idc-sig.png
    Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
This discussion has been closed.