Originality Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast) |
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #46170
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
  
    
|
Posted: Mon 2007-08-13 08:44
|
 |
| Politics: Dominionism |
Country: United States |
|
| What's with Ron Paul? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Wow. Is all I have to say really. I realize some of you libertarians are really keen and hot on getting Ron Paul nominated... but am I the only one besides Rage Against The Machine telling you to WAKE UP!? I mean, I can't believe BB created an entire subforum for some political hopeful (keyword: HOPEFUL), and then created a politics label for him.
He's got a snowball's chance in hell. I like John Edwards, but you don't see me running around getting an erection over him. God.
What's so great about Ron Paul, guys? Since Ron Paul is relatively a nobody, there's little media coverage about him. I find it silly some of you, like BB, sorianofan and Zoon, who discourage conspiracy theories like 9/11 Truth, will commit such blatant doublethink and encourage conspiracy theories involving the lack of media coverage of Ron Paul, or his exclusion from stories. Did it ever occur to anyone that Ron Paul is a nobody? He'll never get elected. He'll never win. He's not Republican enough. I know very little about Ron Paul aside from the claims fellow forum-members have made, like his unwavering anti-Iraq War stance.
| From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul |
| Ron Paul has been referred to as a conservative, a constitutionalist, and a libertarian.[2] He is an advocate of states' rights, free trade, fewer taxes, smaller government, national sovereignty, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.[3] Paul supports reduced government spending and reduced taxes. As congressman, he states that he has never voted to raise taxes or to approve an unbalanced budget.[4] He has called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the federal income tax. He also voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War Resolution, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. |
I can understand state's rights, but states no longer really have free sovereignty since the end of the Civil War. That war basically ended such freedoms. Nowadays, you don't see states refusing to contribute to the Iraq War even if they are liberal hotspots.
Free trade... hm. I don't agree with free trade because it limits the ability of nations to protect their own goods and products and workers.
Taxes support the government, which supports us. I personally think all taxes could be simplified with a simple sales and income tax combined together. I think the tax levels are fine, they just need to be simplified.
Doesn't America have national sovereignty?
Hm. "Non-interventionist foreign policy"... this would be a disaster.
I am not for a reduced government. I don't see how people jerk off to thinking that businesses are more trustworthy than government... none are trustworthy, that's why both need regulations. Fuck.
| From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul |
| Paul said in 2004 that he had refused to vote for more than 700 bills creating a larger government over his previous two terms in office.[39] In March 2001, Paul introduced the "Constitutional War Powers Resolution of 2001" which would repeal the 1973 War Powers Resolution, and thus prohibit presidents from initiating a war without a formal declaration of war by Congress.[40] In 2001, however, Paul voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which authorized the president, pursuant to War Powers Resolution, to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. |
Sounds like he's contradicting himself. "Use of military force" would be used against specific nations to wipe out "terrorists", so basically he's contradicting himself.
| From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul |
The political positions of Ron Paul are in line with this American politician's stance as a Constitutionalist who professes a libertarian philosophy. Accordingly, he opposes presidential autonomy and judicial activism, and rejects a welfare state or nanny state role for the federal government.[1]
Paul says that the Republican Party has lost its commitment to limited government and has instead become the party of big government.[2] He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes.[3] His unwillingness to vote for proposals not expressly authorized by the Constitution, along with his medical degree, have earned him the nickname “Dr. No.”
Paul supports free trade, the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, states' rights, tighter border security, gun ownership, voluntary school prayer,[4] and a return to free market health care. He opposes abortion, capital punishment, NAFTA and the WTO, the income tax, universal health care,[5] the federal War on Drugs, federal regulation of marriage, and foreign interventionism, advocating withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations.[6] He voted against funding same-sex adoption. |
So he rejects welfare. How would people like myself, with developed schizophrenia, survive? Like sorianofan's suggestion: to beg on the streets? I've paid taxes in the past; the government has a duty to help its worst-off citizens or else it is no longer a government of the people.
School prayer? I have and didn't have a problem when I was in school with students praying to themselves while eating, but once it becomes organized, it violates the Consitution, assuming an adult gets involved.
Another problem: he opposes abortion. It's like he's a Christian or something LOL.
Contradicting myself, I'm undecided overall about income tax. The way I see it, you've earned income, therefore, you should be able to keep it. What right does the government have to take your income? However, if you want to benefit from society's goods and services, you should pay a sales tax to the government to fund more goods and services, helping the economy.
Sounds like he's also isolationist. Last time America was isolationist, the world wasn't a pretty place to live in. Or so it goes.
Despite his adamant stance against the Iraq War, he did offer to declare war on Iraq, and now he bitches about it curtailing our freedoms through the war efforts. Maybe you shouldn't have suggested the war in the first place, dumbass!
You "gets" what you "pays" for.
| From External Site |
| Paul introduced legislation in October 2002 for Congress to declare war on Iraq. He said he would not vote for his own bill, but if his fellow members of Congress wished to go to war in Iraq, they should follow the Constitution and declare war. In a hearing on the resolution, Republican Rep. Henry Hyde said, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore."[39] As one of six Republicans to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, Paul inspired the founding of a group called the National Peace Lobby Project to promote a resolution he and Oregon representative Peter DeFazio sponsored to repeal the war authorization in February 2003. His column "35 Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq"[43] was translated and published in German, French, Russian, Italian, and Swiss publications before the Iraq War began. |
Yeah, really anti-war guy huh?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know a little more about Ron Paul. I don't mean to insult anyone who likes Ron Paul, but to think he even has a chance at winning is absurd and unrealistic, not to mention the uncouth word: idealistic.
Despite his contradictory stances on the Iraq War, I applaud his moral convictions concerning the Constitution. As a Dominionist, I respect authority and the law, and I encourage others to do the same. It makes for a healthier and better society.
Anyways, Meph' out.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Memory Hole
Spy
Post #46264
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 118
Total Words: 7,493
Average words per post: 63.5
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-08-15 01:01
|
|
| Politics: Nihilism |
Country: Australia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I've never heard of Ron Paul...
Nobody ever tells me anything.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Filthy Animal
Post #46296
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Wed 2007-08-15 10:14
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Memory Hole wrote: |
I've never heard of Ron Paul...
Nobody ever tells me anything.
|
FreeME.TV will give you a very good idea. He's a conservative libertarian running for the A,merican Presidency, trying to secure the Republican ticket.
Nick is correct in a lot of his criticisms. In a way, when this country is going down the tubes, some of us get a little hopeful. I think it is our last chance for a long time.
_________________
Luke 6:37:
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Memory Hole
Spy
Post #46370
Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Posts: 118
Total Words: 7,493
Average words per post: 63.5
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2007-08-16 12:29
|
|
| Politics: Nihilism |
Country: Australia |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
When I was little I wanted to be President of America. Y'see, if there's a group of people you really don't like, and don't want them to be in power. You become one of them and become their leader. 
Then I realised that because I was born in Australia it is even more impossible then it would have been even if I had been born in America. (Thank god I wasn't, y'hear that god?, I'm thanking you!)
Anyhoo.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #46399
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3015
Total Words: 1,173,420
Average words per post: 389.19
PoliMatch: n/a
   
|
|
Posted: Fri 2007-08-17 00:42
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Ron Paul Rant |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| sorianofan wrote: |
| Memory Hole wrote: |
I've never heard of Ron Paul...
Nobody ever tells me anything.
|
FreeME.TV will give you a very good idea. He's a conservative libertarian running for the American Presidency, trying to secure the Republican ticket.
Nick is correct in a lot of his criticisms. In a way, when this country is going down the tubes, some of us get a little hopeful. I think it is our last chance for a long time. |
That's right. The odds may be stacked against Paul, but what other choice do we have? The other "frontrunner" candidates are all scumbags. If any of them get elected, their administration is going to be worse than Bush's. That is not to say that I think any of the other GOP contenders have a chance to beat Hillary. It is almost a forgone conclusion that Hillary will win the Dem nomination, and that the GOP will lose the next presidential election (It's hard to image the republicans winning the presidency while Bush is sitting at a 32% approval rating.)
Put 1 and 1 together, and it isn’t too hard to predict the future.
So that is really the choice... Do nothing and let Hillary win the election, or support a candidate that I actually like (and the first politician that I have EVER really liked). It isn't a hard choice to make.
Sportsbook.com recently lowered Ron Paul's odds once again. He started off at 200 to 1 odds, went to 15 to 1 after the first debates, and has dropped to 8 to 1 since the Iowa straw poll. Fox news can call Paul "unelectable" all they want, but this claim is not based on any sort of firm reasoning. Why is a 10 term congressman "unelectable", while a crappy Mayor and a member of a Utah cult considered to be "frontrunners"?
You can claim that it is based on money or opinion polls, but the “6 Frontrunners” were selected by the media before the campaign even had begun. It really makes no sense.
1) Paul has several million in the bank - more than all the other GOP candidates except for Giuliani and Romney (and if you take out the funds that Romney has "lent" to his own campaign, he is only trailing Giuliani).
2) He has over 26,000 volunteers through meetup.com. This makes his campaign the largest in the country. Do you have any idea how much it would cost the other campaigns to hire 26,000 people to pass out flyers and hang up signs?
3) He has constantly performed well in every post-debate poll and in most straw polls. The only polls that he doesn't do well in are "scientific" national phone polls, which put him at about 2 or 3%. But there are several reasons for this:
* Pollsters only question people who voted Republican in the last campaign. Paul is bringing in many independents and former democrats. (Polls of independents show his support at around 9%)
* Pollsters only call people with old Ma Bell landlines. A lot of Paul’s supporters are young, and don't have landlines (I haven't had one since 1997).
* At this early stage in the game, most people aren't really paying attention. How many people do you think have actually watched the debates on television?... a few million? I would say that only about 5% of the voting public has really given the 2008 election any serious thought. So, at this point, national polls are little more than name recognition contests. (Carter and Clinton we both polling at about 2% this early on, and then went on to win the presidency).
It can be difficult to predict what will happen, but so far, Ron's poll numbers have increased after every major media appearance. And as this campaign continues on (and as more people start paying attention) Ron's numbers will continue to grow. As more candidates drop out, that will provide Paul with more time to speak during debates (assuming that they don't try to exclude him, and assuming that the scaredy-cat "frontrunners" actually will agree to attend any more debates).
Things are still on the upward trend, and we should know within the next couple months whether or not Paul really is "unelectable". Thus far, the media's predictions about "electability" haven't really panned out. Didn't they tell us that McCain was a frontrunner? Didn't they tell us that Giuliani was a serious contender? Why is it that these guys only got about 1% at Ames?
And isn't this the same media that is now telling us that MORMON Romney actually has a chance to be elected? Are they fucking serious? Even though Romney got 31% in Iowa, he had to spend millions of dollars to do it. Romney purchased 10,000 tickets and offered free rides to the polls on busses (and then provided golf carts to get voters from the parking lot to the voting booths). He also splurged for free food and free entertainment. Yet, despite this, he could only get 4,000 Iowans to actually take him up on the offer. Romney should have won that thing with 50-70% of the vote – especially since all of his “major competition” each only got about 1% each. Despite what the media is trying to spin, Romney’s 31% was actually somewhat of a disappointment for his campaign.
Take a look at this video of the results being announced in Iowa.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #46482
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-08-19 20:27
|
|
| Politics: Just plain NUTS! |
Country: Scotland |
|
| Re: What's with Ron Paul? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Now, admittedly, replying to you in recent months has been a bit like trying to argue with Man-E-Faces, Mephi, but I'm going to presume that what you've said in this post is still close to what you believe now.
| Mephistopheles wrote: |
Wow. Is all I have to say really. I realize some of you libertarians are really keen and hot on getting Ron Paul nominated... but am I the only one besides Rage Against The Machine telling you to WAKE UP!? I mean, I can't believe BB created an entire subforum for some political hopeful (keyword: HOPEFUL), and then created a politics label for him.
He's got a snowball's chance in hell. I like John Edwards, but you don't see me running around getting an erection over him. God.
What's so great about Ron Paul, guys? Since Ron Paul is relatively a nobody, there's little media coverage about him. I find it silly some of you, like BB, sorianofan and Zoon, who discourage conspiracy theories like 9/11 Truth, will commit such blatant doublethink and encourage conspiracy theories involving the lack of media coverage of Ron Paul, or his exclusion from stories. Did it ever occur to anyone that Ron Paul is a nobody? He'll never get elected. He'll never win. He's not Republican enough. I know very little about Ron Paul aside from the claims fellow forum-members have made, like his unwavering anti-Iraq War stance.
|
By that logic, anyone who takes an interest in a political candidate, movement or idea that doesn't have a lot of power is wasting their time. If that's the case, we might as well close down this forum now, because frankly we're wasting our time. I wonder what's happening on the OTHER "Big Brother" right now? [/gratuitous sarcasm] 
| Mephi wrote: |
| Free trade... hm. I don't agree with free trade because it limits the ability of nations to protect their own goods and products and workers. |
How can a country protect its goods and products by protectionism? All it can do is decrease their need for competition, thus lowering their quality and increasing the expense of their production. Not only that, but protectionism keeps nations backward and reduces their chance of ever being competitive on the world market. I don't want to go into a long Adam Smith-inspired rant when the topic doesn't directly call for it, but it's needless to say that Ad and I agree that state protection of goods ultimately costs everyone.
As for the workers, it protects them from things like... Well, working to be competitive with the rest of the world. It protects them from buying quality products from abroad. It protects them from a world where continents like Africa can prosper by selling their goods fairly on European and North American markets. It protects bureaucrats like those in Brussels, who actively pursue the dominance of their farmers over the poor of Africa. On a very general level, protectionism protects the world from happiness.
| Mephi wrote: |
| Taxes support the government, which supports us. I personally think all taxes could be simplified with a simple sales and income tax combined together. I think the tax levels are fine, they just need to be simplified. |
The key question is not so much a question of support, as a question of efficiency. Some services are best provided by the state, while others are best provided by private enterprise, and some are best provided by non-profit organisations like charities. What Ron Paul is arguing for is a re-thinking of which services do and do not operate at an optimal level when under state control. A consquence of this re-thinking is cutting taxation, since Ron Paul (and libertarians in general) think that the state provides numerous services that it does not do as well at providing as other sectors. Indeed, I think Ron Paul has claimed all public services are best provided by private enterprise. So, you see, taxation is fundamentally tied up with American state expenditure, which in Ron Paul's opinion is too large (I happen to agree).
| Mephi wrote: |
| Hm. "Non-interventionist foreign policy"... this would be a disaster. |
Why?
| Mephi wrote: |
| Sounds like he's contradicting himself. "Use of military force" would be used against specific nations to wipe out "terrorists", so basically he's contradicting himself. |
Ignoring the fact that you've made one or two ideological switcheroonies in your time (well, not ignoring it, just bringing it subtley into the fore) I can't see anything wrong with someone changing their foreign policy in accordance with the international situation. After all, the US doesn't have nuclear weapons primed at East Germany any more, does it?
| Mephi wrote: |
| So he rejects welfare. How would people like myself, with developed schizophrenia, survive? Like sorianofan's suggestion: to beg on the streets? I've paid taxes in the past; the government has a duty to help its worst-off citizens or else it is no longer a government of the people. |
I think that the problem here is chiefly one of semantics: a welfare state is, in typical use, different from a state that provides certain welfares. Britain in 1912 provided a variety of welfare services, but the Liberal reforms that preceded it are typically (although controversially) referred to as precursors to the welfare state. I suppose the chief difference between a welfare state and a state that provides welfare, aside from the scale of welfare systems, is the principles behind their operation: welfare states are based on a certain concept of rights and priviledges that are not always implicit in states that provide welfare.
| Mephi wrote: |
| Contradicting myself, I'm undecided overall about income tax. The way I see it, you've earned income, therefore, you should be able to keep it. What right does the government have to take your income? However, if you want to benefit from society's goods and services, you should pay a sales tax to the government to fund more goods and services, helping the economy. |
To use your own terminology- the government has a right to take your income because it looks after you. To use mind- your giving up of your income is concordant with the social contract of protection/supply provided with the government; after all, it's the cash of the people that pays for the services of the state.
Sales taxes have two principle problems when used in excess: (1) they're grossly unfair. Why should someone who earns $15,000 per annum experience the same tax as someone who earns $1,000,000,000 a year? All forms of indirect taxation shoulder the poor with an burden that it is neither desirable nor just to apply to them.
(2) Sales taxes (unless we are referring to different things) do not improve economic performance. The most efficient economies (in terms of economic performance) are small countries like Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Iceland, Switzerland and Singapore, who encourage foreign investment and local enterprise by making themselves cheap places to do business. The European Union even engages in economic warfare to prevent nations like Luxembourg from competing too much with them in terms of low VAT taxation (because the EU is fundamentally opposed to competition and efficiency). Lowering sales taxes encourages consumption and thus improves the environment for domestic consumer goods production.
| Mephi wrote: |
Now I know a little more about Ron Paul. I don't mean to insult anyone who likes Ron Paul, but to think he even has a chance at winning is absurd and unrealistic, not to mention the uncouth word: idealistic.
Despite his contradictory stances on the Iraq War, I applaud his moral convictions concerning the Constitution. As a Dominionist, I respect authority and the law, and I encourage others to do the same. It makes for a healthier and better society. |
Idealisticness's antithesis is cynicism (not pragmatism; one can be pragmatically idealistic or cynical). Surely, therefore, if people pursue their own personal gain and assume others do the same, it is not possible for people to respect law and authority unless it serves themselves.
Irony of ironies- the more use of "contradictory" there is, the more contradictions in the argument present themselves. 
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
orwelliantherye
Filthy Animal
Post #46485
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
 
|
|
Posted: Sun 2007-08-19 21:32
|
|
| Politics: Democratic Socialist |
Country: Fascist States of America |
|
| Re: What's with Ron Paul? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I'm sure I have asked this on the forum before, but I've never gotten an answer: what happens to this subforum when Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination to one of the many scumbags also trying to get it? Yes, he's got some very sound policies (and so does Kucinich, but I digress), but that doesn't mean that he's likely to even get the republican nomination. He's so far away from the religious right-wing views of virtually every other republican in the nation that even if he does get the nomination, he would inevitably split the party in two, thus ensuring a Democratic Victory. In short, Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance.
_________________
| Rev. Ted Haggard wrote: |
| If you only read the books I read and met the scientists I know, then you would be great like me. As you age you'll find yourself right on some things and wrong on some other things, but please, in the process, don't be arrogant. |
| Eddie Murphy wrote: |
| I was upset when I met a man with no shoes.....But then I met a man with no penis |
Veteran of the First Batshit War on rats.
Current Situation: Not Good.
Note to Self and Others: Please Avoid Carl.
Orwelliantherye; As Harmless as Kitchen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Post #46498
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2007-08-20 01:38
|
|
| Politics: Liberal |
Country: United States |
|
| Re: What's with Ron Paul? |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| Now, admittedly, replying to you in recent months has been a bit like trying to argue with Man-E-Faces, Mephi, but I'm going to presume that what you've said in this post is still close to what you believe now. |
Yes. While my ideological stances have changed lately frequently NOT because I'm wishy-washy and jump on whatever passes by me, but rather, because I choose ideologies I feel are best for humanity; my political and economic views haven't changed since I became a capitalist at the end of my democratic socialism phase. I'm very sorry for all the confusion, this is to everyone reading this.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| By that logic, anyone who takes an interest in a political candidate, movement or idea that doesn't have a lot of power is wasting their time. If that's the case, we might as well close down this forum now, because frankly we're wasting our time. I wonder what's happening on the OTHER "Big Brother" right now? [/gratuitous sarcasm] |
I didn't extend that logic to all people. I just think supporting Ron Paul, no matter how much you believe in him, to me, is a waste of time. Saying that applies to everyone in my mind is a fallacy.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| How can a country protect its goods and products by protectionism? All it can do is decrease their need for competition, thus lowering their quality and increasing the expense of their production. Not only that, but protectionism keeps nations backward and reduces their chance of ever being competitive on the world market. I don't want to go into a long Adam Smith-inspired rant when the topic doesn't directly call for it, but it's needless to say that Ad and I agree that state protection of goods ultimately costs everyone. |
Because when American goods can't compete with cheap Chinese goods, American workers suffer. I could be wrong. I don't fully understand economics, but what I know of it, I support mild tariffs to protect American trade.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| As for the workers, it protects them from things like... Well, working to be competitive with the rest of the world. It protects them from buying quality products from abroad. It protects them from a world where continents like Africa can prosper by selling their goods fairly on European and North American markets. It protects bureaucrats like those in Brussels, who actively pursue the dominance of their farmers over the poor of Africa. On a very general level, protectionism protects the world from happiness. |
You can't really compete with dirt-poor wages Chinese workers get... can you?
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| The key question is not so much a question of support, as a question of efficiency. Some services are best provided by the state, while others are best provided by private enterprise, and some are best provided by non-profit organisations like charities. What Ron Paul is arguing for is a re-thinking of which services do and do not operate at an optimal level when under state control. A consquence of this re-thinking is cutting taxation, since Ron Paul (and libertarians in general) think that the state provides numerous services that it does not do as well at providing as other sectors. Indeed, I think Ron Paul has claimed all public services are best provided by private enterprise. So, you see, taxation is fundamentally tied up with American state expenditure, which in Ron Paul's opinion is too large (I happen to agree). |
I certainly agree expenditure is too much, considering we have a what, 2.65 TRILLION budget?
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| Why? |
I think that if the UN would get off its ass and do something about the Congo or Sudan, American troops could be sent to police, but not under their own orders like we did with Iraq.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| Ignoring the fact that you've made one or two ideological switcheroonies in your time (well, not ignoring it, just bringing it subtley into the fore) I can't see anything wrong with someone changing their foreign policy in accordance with the international situation. After all, the US doesn't have nuclear weapons primed at East Germany any more, does it? |
I see your point. I wrote this when I was pretty condescending of Ron Paul, instead of simply neutral.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| I think that the problem here is chiefly one of semantics: a welfare state is, in typical use, different from a state that provides certain welfares. Britain in 1912 provided a variety of welfare services, but the Liberal reforms that preceded it are typically (although controversially) referred to as precursors to the welfare state. I suppose the chief difference between a welfare state and a state that provides welfare, aside from the scale of welfare systems, is the principles behind their operation: welfare states are based on a certain concept of rights and priviledges that are not always implicit in states that provide welfare. |
Maybe it's just semantics, but I think I still have a point, that the government has a responsibility to help its worst-off citizens.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| To use your own terminology- the government has a right to take your income because it looks after you. To use mind- your giving up of your income is concordant with the social contract of protection/supply provided with the government; after all, it's the cash of the people that pays for the services of the state. |
I don't deny there's some merit to the idea of an income tax, I just think it's on par with feudal tribute.
If you use the services of the state, I understand why you should be taxed in some form, but if you can manage to reject the services, you shouldn't have to pay taxes.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
| Sales taxes have two principle problems when used in excess: (1) they're grossly unfair. Why should someone who earns $15,000 per annum experience the same tax as someone who earns $1,000,000,000 a year? All forms of indirect taxation shoulder the poor with an burden that it is neither desirable nor just to apply to them. |
I understand this. I've basically dropped sales tax, because it's not good for economic trade as comrade Azazel pointed out to me.
| One Of The Few wrote: |
Idealisticness's antithesis is cynicism (not pragmatism; one can be pragmatically idealistic or cynical). Surely, therefore, if people pursue their own personal gain and assume others do the same, it is not possible for people to respect law and authority unless it serves themselves.
Irony of ironies- the more use of "contradictory" there is, the more contradictions in the argument present themselves. |
I can see your point.
_________________
Yippykiaye motherfucker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
