GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 27 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-14-2012, 04:52 PM   #391
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:39 PM
some of these arguments sound good in principle,
and because there is a problem on one level, it does not always follow that a better solution is always found some where else.

if an unreasonable group wanted to take over and impose their views on others, would it be easier to do that on a small local level or a large national level?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:53 PM   #392
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

The reason why I'm a fan of bringing the power from the national level to the state level is really because I feel as though it brings more power to the people.
I think this can be argued both ways. Let's take the ADA for example. If you have no ADA what is the incentive for a company to make the accomadations necessary for a disabled employee?

As a person in a wheelchair I can't fit into certain spaces, can't use certain facilities, I can't use certain elevators and the list goes on and on. Now I'm more qualified than you for the position of manager, but why would the company hire me? It will cost them to make modification to their office building.

So then that person stays unemployed just because they are in a wheelchair?

But wait now that person who is completely willing and able to work is collecting a check from the government? But Ron is against that as well, so what is his solution? Leave it up to the state? What's the state's motivator to do anything about it? And then what happens when you cross state borders, there is no uniform code?

This can be applied to civil rights, education, etc.

Libertarianism sounds good in theory, but cannot be implemented in the real world. It relies too much on people, organizations and corporations acting outside of their own interests.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

Not to mention the fact that the media has less control of what goes on among all of this (I hate the media).
It's easy to blame or demonize "media", but really what does that mean? Does local media not count? Are they powerless, because last time I checked most of them are owned and ran by national affilates. I think one has to be careful when blaming "media" because there are plenty of mediums that are filled with great information and information is detrimental.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:54 PM   #393
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 01:39 AM
"Libertarians" often like to pull that trick of talking about how they want to strip the federal government of power to give more power to the people and their individual rights, when in reality they want states to be allowed to ban women's rights, gay's rights, minority's rights, etc.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:56 PM   #394
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,890
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Well I don't want to get this thread further off topic, and maybe it's a conversation for another day, but just because it's intent is not homophobic or it's a common internet expression does that mean it's not homophobic? It's origins are. To me it's like 'fag', you can argue all you want that your intent is harmless and you use it just like you do the word 'idiot', but the origins as to why 'fag' is used in a deragatory way are homophobic.
This word is not "fag," sorry. I feel like younger people sort of have a better grasp of this. Its origins never had anything to do with homophobia. And I say this as someone who uses neither word.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:56 PM   #395
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,383
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
In addition to what PhilsFan said, I have always taken issue with Ron Paul trying to paint himself as a libertarian, when in fact, he is a Republican, he caucuses with the Republicans, votes with them consistently and holds a number of views that would be totally contrary to basic libertarian principles.

His argument for states' rights is not a libertarian argument - it is a question of federalism. A true libertarian would not say to leave abortion rights to the states, because a true libertarian would not see any state encroachment on individual liberty as acceptable. (I picked abortion as the easy one, but you can go down the list of many of his states' rights initiatives and make the same type of argument.)
There are in fact two types of Libertarians. The Libertarian Party also recognizes this, with a conservative and a liberal wing. Ron Paul was, of course, on the conservative wing in the Libertarian Party with his time there.

I think it's a bit ridiculous that you're questioning Ron Paul's credibility as a Libertarian. The man is as economically conservative as they get (total bare-bone laissez-faire economics), and totally socially liberal. He is all for individual rights of all people, even if he has a different approach on that (which meshes with his limited government viewpoints). If he were 'not a Libertarian' but actually just a straight up Republican as you say, he wouldn't be the black sheep that the Republican Party has created out of him. What viewpoints of his are contradictory to Libertarian ideology? He's absolutely a Libertarian. An absolutely extreme Libertarian.

He says things like 'leave abortion to the states rights' when he's prompted such a question at a Republican debate. If one were to ask Ron Paul what he believes, he would tell you 'abortion is wrong'. But Ron Paul wants to give the decision to the people to decide morality. He doesn't want to tell people what they can and cannot do. It appeases both Republicans and Democrats with states rights on something like abortion, that will never go away. That's not his way of slipping in an 'illegal abortion' clause to his Libertarian viewpoints. The point is that when you bring something down from a national level to a state level, the voice of the people is more relevant. Ron Paul always encourages the voice of the people. Like I said before, he isn't against the ADA so businesses can maximize benefits (like other Republicans might be), but rather he's for people making the decision themselves to demand that a business will make a place wheelchair accessible.

He's pretty Libertarian if you ask me...
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:59 PM   #396
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:39 PM
Paul has his cred in the libertarian movement for a few of his major stands

1. stop the war on drugs, let people do what they want with their own bodies.
2. stop fighting proxy wars for others, only fight to defend our boarders.
3. stop government spending on things that the government should not be doing.


those are just a few, one should not dismiss him or his followers, they have quite bit of influence.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 04:59 PM   #397
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
There are in fact two types of Libertarians. The Libertarian Party also recognizes this, with a conservative and a liberal wing. Ron Paul was, of course, on the conservative wing in the Libertarian Party with his time there.
By definition this doesn't make sense.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:08 PM   #398
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,383
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I think this can be argued both ways. Let's take the ADA for example. If you have no ADA what is the incentive for a company to make the accomadations necessary for a disabled employee?

As a person in a wheelchair I can't fit into certain spaces, can't use certain facilities, I can't use certain elevators and the list goes on and on. Now I'm more qualified than you for the position of manager, but why would the company hire me? It will cost them to make modification to their office building.

So then that person stays unemployed just because they are in a wheelchair?
And I think this is absolutely a situation where the ideology is spot on but the approach is a bit too extreme. Ron Paul is about the message though. He's not going to be elected barring a miracle. His mission is to establish that ideology and leave that legacy, I presume. Even if he were to be elected, he would never be able to do away with the ADA. But he could absolutely dumb it down. I think it's too extreme to do away with the ADA as a whole because even like Ron Paul says himself: you can't instill morals in people. Like I said, he's not perfect, but something like that is much more of an ideological point than anything else.

Yes, some aspects of Libertarian ideology are flawed. It depends what approach on Libertarianism you're taking. On something like knocking out the federal income tax completely... that might be far-fetched on the microscopic scale but it's not actually flawed thinking, especially if you're diverting the tax rights to the states.

Quote:
It's easy to blame or demonize "media", but really what does that mean? Does local media not count? Are they powerless, because last time I checked most of them are owned and ran by national affilates. I think one has to be careful when blaming "media" because there are plenty of mediums that are filled with great information and information is detrimental.
Local media doesn't count in the same way national media does. National medias have a national agenda. Local medias might have a local agenda, but their influence is not nearly as strong. But you're misunderstanding my hatred of the media. I mean we can go into this deeper and deeper, but I think it's best just left at 'I hate the media'.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:16 PM   #399
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,383
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
By definition this doesn't make sense.
Sure it does.

You have left-libertarians and right-libertarians. The term libertarian can be applied in many fashions actually. More than just two.

It's not as cut and dry as a single definition.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:17 PM   #400
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
And I think this is absolutely a situation where the ideology is spot on but the approach is a bit too extreme. Ron Paul is about the message though. He's not going to be elected barring a miracle. His mission is to establish that ideology and leave that legacy, I presume. Even if he were to be elected, he would never be able to do away with the ADA.
This is why I don't get Paul and his supporters. What is the point? And how is he getting his message through? Through the media you hate

Surely there is a better way to convey a message, right?

Why run on a platform of theory that never intend to practice?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:22 PM   #401
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Sure it does.

You have left-libertarians and right-libertarians. The term libertarian can be applied in many fashions actually. More than just two.

It's not as cut and dry as a single definition.
Define libertarian for me.

I'm not talking about how it's used today, but the TRUE definition.

This is exactly why the party suffers. The majority of libertarians I know aren't true to the definition therefore come off as hypocrites.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:24 PM   #402
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,383
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
This is why I don't get Paul and his supporters. What is the point? And how is he getting his message through? Through the media you hate

Surely there is a better way to convey a message, right?

Why run on a platform of theory that never intend to practice?
Ron Paul's supporters have grown over the past 4-8 years tremendously. They're also, for the most part, very young. Give it time, and don't be surprised when someone picks up in Paul's footsteps and takes the White House by storm in the future.

Media =/= the media. The media hates Ron Paul. That's quite evident. They refuse to acknowledge him, and often talk about the 'three candidates in the race'. He's the Republican black sheep and absolutely rejected by the opposite side. His strength lies in the independents and moderate conservatives (and some of the hardcore economic conservatives).

I don't think Ron Paul doesn't intend to practice. But he's willing to accept that he probably wont, but still stand up for the movement. Ron Paul's support grows in numbers, but more importantly the Ron Paul supporters are arguably the most loyal of supporters. They're not going anywhere, and will continue to grow in numbers and continue to vote for their guy whether that be Ron Paul or whoever picks up where he leaves off.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:34 PM   #403
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,383
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Define libertarian for me.

I'm not talking about how it's used today, but the TRUE definition.

This is exactly why the party suffers. The majority of libertarians I know aren't true to the definition therefore come off as hypocrites.
Libertarian ideology would be any combination of beliefs that accomplishes individual liberties and freedoms. Like I said before, laissez-faire government. Getting the most out of individual freedoms while limiting the abilities of the government. Basically... free will.

I'm not part of the Libertarian Party. I do not support the Libertarian Party. It's ass backwards at times. Most of Ron Paul's supporters are not part of the Libertarian Party (however I would imagine that most of the Libertarian Party members are voters of Ron Paul).
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:37 PM   #404
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

I think it's a bit ridiculous that you're questioning Ron Paul's credibility as a Libertarian.
I'm close to deciding that there is almost no point to try to have a respectful debate with you, to be honest. But here goes one last try...

[/quote]The man is as economically conservative as they get (total bare-bone laissez-faire economics), [/quote]

Really? He supports unrestricted free markets and, to that end, a global migration of workers unhindered by border and national restrictions and regulations? Did he not rail against NAFTA and as one of his reasons use the (incorrect) fact that it would result in "virtually borderless travel"?

Quote:
He says things like 'leave abortion to the states rights' when he's prompted such a question at a Republican debate. If one were to ask Ron Paul what he believes, he would tell you 'abortion is wrong'. But Ron Paul wants to give the decision to the people to decide morality.
That is simply not what libertarianism is about. You are suggesting that Ron Paul feels that a group of people constituting a majority or a plurality, through the faculties of the state and state powers, should be able to impose restrictions on individual freedom such as the freedom to marry individuals of your sex, or to have an abortion. NOT a libertarian view. The US Libertarian Party, which is by no means a fringe party, clearly states that the government (not the federal government, but ANY government) does NOT have "authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships".

Once again, this is completely contrary to Ron Paul's views and it does not have anything to do with being a "conservative" or "liberal" libertarian, it has to do with the most basic principles of libertarianism. A great example of where this would not be the case would be Paul's views on absolute rights in respect of property ownership - that is a position which generally draws a line down the middle between two types of libertarians and it is not a position for which I could fault him or accuse him of not being a true libertarian. An example somewhere halfway is NAFTA - he is against it because he cites that it imposes governmental regulatory burdens (libertarian view) but does not comment on its clear impact on free markets and an easing of restrictions on capitalism (also a libertarian view). But his positions on abortion and gay rights are completely incompatible.

I have to jump on a call so I don't have time to address more of the points unfortunately.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-14-2012, 05:39 PM   #405
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post

I don't think Ron Paul doesn't intend to practice. But he's willing to accept that he probably wont, but still stand up for the movement.
You're saying two different things here. Either he's for or against abolishing the ADA and everything else his platform says.

I understand accepting that not everything can be done, but you are either for it or you're not.

If he's actually for it then his stances are incredibly questionable. No matter if he can actually pass them or not, the stance alone is questionable and downright dangerous.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com